Miller v. Ludwig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Ludwig

126 A.D.3d 1397, 3 N.Y.S.3d 696

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2015

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 1397 (Miller v. Ludwig) 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

Miller v. Ludwig, 126 A.D.3d 1397, 3 N.Y.S.3d 696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

[1398]*1398Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Steuben County (Joseph W. Latham, A.J.), dated March 28, 2014. The order, in essence, denied the motion of defendant Mary Morrison for leave to reargue a prior motion to dismiss.

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

Memorandum: Although defendant-appellant purports to appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss, the record establishes that she is actually appealing from an order denying a motion for leave to reargue a prior motion to dismiss. It is well settled that no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for leave to reargue (see MidFirst Bank v Storto, 121 AD3d 1575, 1575 [2014]; Britt v Buffalo Mun. Hous. Auth., 115 AD3d 1252, 1252 [2014]).

Present — Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

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

[1398]*1398Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Steuben County (Joseph W. Latham, A.J.), dated March 28, 2014. The order, in essence, denied the motion of defendant Mary Morrison for leave to reargue a prior motion to dismiss.

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

Memorandum: Although defendant-appellant purports to appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss, the record establishes that she is actually appealing from an order denying a motion for leave to reargue a prior motion to dismiss. It is well settled that no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for leave to reargue (see MidFirst Bank v Storto, 121 AD3d 1575, 1575 [2014]; Britt v Buffalo Mun. Hous. Auth., 115 AD3d 1252, 1252 [2014]).

Present — Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 1397, 3 N.Y.S.3d 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-ludwig-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack