Lewis v. City of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lewis v. City of Rochester

2017 NY Slip Op 9069, 156 A.D.3d 1472, 65 N.Y.S.3d 863

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2017

Docket1492 CA 17-01106

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 9069 (Lewis v. City of Rochester) 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

Lewis v. City of Rochester, 2017 NY Slip Op 9069, 156 A.D.3d 1472, 65 N.Y.S.3d 863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Debra A. Martin, A.J.), dated August 30, 2016. The order denied the purported “motion to renew” of defendants.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Contrary to defendants’ contention, Supreme Court properly determined that their purported “motion to renew” is a motion for leave to reargue (see DiCienzo v Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency, 63 AD3d 1663, 1664 [4th Dept 2009]; see generally. CPLR 2221 [d], [e]). In support of their motion, defendants failed to offer new facts that were unavailable when the court initially denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Matter of Hamilton v Alley, 143 AD3d 1235, 1236 [4th Dept 2016]; Hill v Milan, 89 AD3d 1458, 1458 [4th Dept 2011]). Thus, the motion was in effect a motion for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appeal-able (see MidFirst Bank v Storto, 121 AD3d 1575, 1575 [4th Dept 2014]; Britt v Buffalo Mun. Hous. Auth., 115 AD3d 1252, 1252 [4th Dept 2014]).

Present—Whalen, P.J., Smith, Carni, Troutman and Winslow, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Debra A. Martin, A.J.), dated August 30, 2016. The order denied the purported “motion to renew” of defendants.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Contrary to defendants’ contention, Supreme Court properly determined that their purported “motion to renew” is a motion for leave to reargue (see DiCienzo v Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency, 63 AD3d 1663, 1664 [4th Dept 2009]; see generally. CPLR 2221 [d], [e]). In support of their motion, defendants failed to offer new facts that were unavailable when the court initially denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Matter of Hamilton v Alley, 143 AD3d 1235, 1236 [4th Dept 2016]; Hill v Milan, 89 AD3d 1458, 1458 [4th Dept 2011]). Thus, the motion was in effect a motion for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appeal-able (see MidFirst Bank v Storto, 121 AD3d 1575, 1575 [4th Dept 2014]; Britt v Buffalo Mun. Hous. Auth., 115 AD3d 1252, 1252 [4th Dept 2014]).

Present—Whalen, P.J., Smith, Carni, Troutman and Winslow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 9069, 156 A.D.3d 1472, 65 N.Y.S.3d 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-city-of-rochester-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack