Nelson v. Bushwick Family Health Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nelson v. Bushwick Family Health Center

87 A.D.2d 837, 449 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16307

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

DecidedApril 12, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 87 A.D.2d 837 (Nelson v. Bushwick Family Health Center) 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

Nelson v. Bushwick Family Health Center, 87 A.D.2d 837, 449 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by -defendant Bushwick Family [838]*838Health Center from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated May 4,1981, which denied its motion for reargument (deemed by Special Term to be one for renewal and rehearing) of an earlier motion for summary judgment, which had been denied by an order of the same court dated January 8, 1981. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Although Special Term’s order characterized the motion as one for renewal and rehearing, no - new facts were presented. Thus, it is clear from the record that the motion was for reargument. No appeal lies from an order denying a motion for reargument (Frankel v Frankel, 67 AD2d 719; CPLR 2221; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 2221:7, pp 157-158). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by -defendant Bushwick Family [838]*838Health Center from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated May 4,1981, which denied its motion for reargument (deemed by Special Term to be one for renewal and rehearing) of an earlier motion for summary judgment, which had been denied by an order of the same court dated January 8, 1981. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Although Special Term’s order characterized the motion as one for renewal and rehearing, no - new facts were presented. Thus, it is clear from the record that the motion was for reargument. No appeal lies from an order denying a motion for reargument (Frankel v Frankel, 67 AD2d 719; CPLR 2221; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 2221:7, pp 157-158). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.2d 837, 449 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-bushwick-family-health-center-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack