King v. Rockaway One Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

King v. Rockaway One Co.

202 A.D.2d 395, 608 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1931

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 7, 1994·Published·Cited by 18 cases

Opinion

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Rockaway One Company appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an [396]*396order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), entered January 7, 1992, as denied its motion, denominated a motion to renew a prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, but which was, in actuality, a motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant failed to offer a valid excuse for not submitting the additional fact upon which the motion was based to the court on its initial motion (see, Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568). Therefore, the motion should properly be denominated as one for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Thrift Assns. Serv. Corp. v Legend of Irvington Joint Venture, 152 AD2d 666, 668). In any event, the fact upon which the defendant relied was not material to the ground upon which the Supreme Court based its denial of the motion for summary judgment (see, Frascatore v Mione, 97 AD2d 809; Foley v Roche, supra). Bracken, J. P., Joy, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Rockaway One Company appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an [396]*396order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), entered January 7, 1992, as denied its motion, denominated a motion to renew a prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, but which was, in actuality, a motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant failed to offer a valid excuse for not submitting the additional fact upon which the motion was based to the court on its initial motion (see, Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568). Therefore, the motion should properly be denominated as one for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Thrift Assns. Serv. Corp. v Legend of Irvington Joint Venture, 152 AD2d 666, 668). In any event, the fact upon which the defendant relied was not material to the ground upon which the Supreme Court based its denial of the motion for summary judgment (see, Frascatore v Mione, 97 AD2d 809; Foley v Roche, supra). Bracken, J. P., Joy, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

King v. Rockaway One Co., 202 A.D.2d 395, 608 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1931 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

202 A.D.2d 395 (King v. Rockaway One Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related