Kozak v. Deb Deb, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kozak v. Deb Deb, LLC

65 A.D.3d 616, 883 N.Y.S.2d 729

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

DecidedAugust 18, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 65 A.D.3d 616 (Kozak v. Deb Deb, LLC) 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

Kozak v. Deb Deb, LLC, 65 A.D.3d 616, 883 N.Y.S.2d 729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), dated March 19, 2008, which denied her motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, but which was, in actuality, one for leave to reargue the defendants’ motion pursuant to CFLR 4401, made at the [617]*617close of evidence, to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law for failure to establish a prima facie case.

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

The appeal must be dismissed. The plaintiff’s motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, was, in actuality, one for leave to reargue, because it was not based on new facts (see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]; [e] [2]; Dess v LRM Bldrs., LLC, 56 AD3d 716 [2008]). An order denying a motion for leave to reargue is not appealable (see Dess v LRM Bldrs., LLC, 56 AD3d at 717). Skelos, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Leventhal, 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 personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), dated March 19, 2008, which denied her motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, but which was, in actuality, one for leave to reargue the defendants’ motion pursuant to CFLR 4401, made at the [617]*617close of evidence, to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law for failure to establish a prima facie case.

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

The appeal must be dismissed. The plaintiff’s motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, was, in actuality, one for leave to reargue, because it was not based on new facts (see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]; [e] [2]; Dess v LRM Bldrs., LLC, 56 AD3d 716 [2008]). An order denying a motion for leave to reargue is not appealable (see Dess v LRM Bldrs., LLC, 56 AD3d at 717). Skelos, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.3d 616, 883 N.Y.S.2d 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kozak-v-deb-deb-llc-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack