Lubin v. Shlefstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lubin v. Shlefstein

247 A.D.2d 618, 668 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1747

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 618 (Lubin v. Shlefstein) 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

Lubin v. Shlefstein, 247 A.D.2d 618, 668 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 which was converted to an action for injunctive relief pursuant to CPLR 103 (c), the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated December 4, 1996, which denied their motion denominated as one for reargument and renewal but which was, in effect, for reargument of the respondent’s motion to. dismiss the petition, which was granted by an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, dated September 6, 1996.

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

The appeal from the order and judgment dated September 6, 1996, was dismissed by decision and order on motion of this Court dated May 12, 1997, for failure to timely perfect the [619]*619same. The appeal from the order dated December 4,1996, must be dismissed, since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, Paulus v Kuchler, 214 AD2d 608).

Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 which was converted to an action for injunctive relief pursuant to CPLR 103 (c), the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated December 4, 1996, which denied their motion denominated as one for reargument and renewal but which was, in effect, for reargument of the respondent’s motion to. dismiss the petition, which was granted by an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, dated September 6, 1996.

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

The appeal from the order and judgment dated September 6, 1996, was dismissed by decision and order on motion of this Court dated May 12, 1997, for failure to timely perfect the [619]*619same. The appeal from the order dated December 4,1996, must be dismissed, since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, Paulus v Kuchler, 214 AD2d 608).

Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 618, 668 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lubin-v-shlefstein-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack