Knutson v. Sand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Knutson v. Sand

249 A.D.2d 451, 671 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4274

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

DecidedApril 20, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 451 (Knutson v. Sand) 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

Knutson v. Sand, 249 A.D.2d 451, 671 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated September 12, 1997, which denied their motion, in effect, for reargument of their prior motion for leave to serve a further bill of particulars.

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

The plaintiffs’ motion, denominated as one for renewal and reargument of their prior motion for leave to serve a further bill of particulars, was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time they submitted their original motion for leave to serve a further bill of particulars (see, Bossio v Fiorillo, 222 AD2d 476). Therefore, the motion is really for reargument, and an order denying such a motion is not appealable. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated September 12, 1997, which denied their motion, in effect, for reargument of their prior motion for leave to serve a further bill of particulars.

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

The plaintiffs’ motion, denominated as one for renewal and reargument of their prior motion for leave to serve a further bill of particulars, was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time they submitted their original motion for leave to serve a further bill of particulars (see, Bossio v Fiorillo, 222 AD2d 476). Therefore, the motion is really for reargument, and an order denying such a motion is not appealable. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 451, 671 N.Y.S.2d 303, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knutson-v-sand-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack