Kisswani v. Manikis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kisswani v. Manikis

303 A.D.2d 643, 756 N.Y.S.2d 787

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 24, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 643 (Kisswani v. Manikis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kisswani v. Manikis, 303 A.D.2d 643, 756 N.Y.S.2d 787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to enforce a judgment, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated April 26, 2002, which deemed the defendant’s motion, denominated, inter alia, as one to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered June 24, 1998, as a motion for leave to reargue an earlier motion, among other [644]*644things, to vacate the judgment, which was denied by an order of the same court, dated January 5, 1999, and denied reargument.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly deemed the defendant’s motion to be one for leave to reargue, and no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see Munz v LaGuardia Hosp., 109 AD2d 731 [1985]). Feuerstein, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to enforce a judgment, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated April 26, 2002, which deemed the defendant’s motion, denominated, inter alia, as one to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered June 24, 1998, as a motion for leave to reargue an earlier motion, among other [644]*644things, to vacate the judgment, which was denied by an order of the same court, dated January 5, 1999, and denied reargument.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly deemed the defendant’s motion to be one for leave to reargue, and no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see Munz v LaGuardia Hosp., 109 AD2d 731 [1985]). Feuerstein, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 643, 756 N.Y.S.2d 787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kisswani-v-manikis-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack