Northern Assurance Co. of America v. Holden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Northern Assurance Co. of America v. Holden

179 A.D.2d 569

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 28, 1992·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

The IAS court correctly concluded that the motion, although characterized as one for renewal, sought reargument. As such, the denial of the motion is not appealable, and the fact that plaintiff denominated it as a motion for renewal does not make it so (Matter of Biscaglio v Roshan Taxi, 43 AD2d 919). Plaintiff failed to allege new facts for the court’s consideration. The affidavit from its. audit supervisor, claimed to be dispositive, was merely cumulative of other information that had already been presented to the court. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

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

The IAS court correctly concluded that the motion, although characterized as one for renewal, sought reargument. As such, the denial of the motion is not appealable, and the fact that plaintiff denominated it as a motion for renewal does not make it so (Matter of Biscaglio v Roshan Taxi, 43 AD2d 919). Plaintiff failed to allege new facts for the court’s consideration. The affidavit from its. audit supervisor, claimed to be dispositive, was merely cumulative of other information that had already been presented to the court. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

Northern Assurance Co. of America v. Holden, 179 A.D.2d 569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

179 A.D.2d 569 (Northern Assurance Co. of America v. Holden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related