Minott v. Nurse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Minott v. Nurse

167 A.D.2d 334, 562 N.Y.S.2d 434, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13384

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

DecidedNovember 5, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 334 (Minott v. Nurse) 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

Minott v. Nurse, 167 A.D.2d 334, 562 N.Y.S.2d 434, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13384 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated actions to recover damages for personal injuries (action No. 1), and for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the Hanover Insurance Company must defend and indemnify Dora and Antonio Nurse in the personal injury action (action No. 2), the Hanover Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated March 24, 1989, which denied its motion denominated as one to vacate an order of the same court, dated August 15, 1988, and entered upon its default, granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in action No. 2 declaring, inter alia, that it must defend and indemnify the defendants in action No. 1.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the appellant’s motion, denominated as one to vacate an order on the ground of excusable default, was actually one for reargument of its prior motion for the same relief (see, Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558). Since no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue, the appeal is dismissed (see, McKay v H.I.P of Greater N. Y., 163 AD2d 280; Anchor Sav. Bank v Alpha Developers, 143 AD2d 711). Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated actions to recover damages for personal injuries (action No. 1), and for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the Hanover Insurance Company must defend and indemnify Dora and Antonio Nurse in the personal injury action (action No. 2), the Hanover Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated March 24, 1989, which denied its motion denominated as one to vacate an order of the same court, dated August 15, 1988, and entered upon its default, granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in action No. 2 declaring, inter alia, that it must defend and indemnify the defendants in action No. 1.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the appellant’s motion, denominated as one to vacate an order on the ground of excusable default, was actually one for reargument of its prior motion for the same relief (see, Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558). Since no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue, the appeal is dismissed (see, McKay v H.I.P of Greater N. Y., 163 AD2d 280; Anchor Sav. Bank v Alpha Developers, 143 AD2d 711). Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 334, 562 N.Y.S.2d 434, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minott-v-nurse-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack