OnBank & Trust Co. v. Dimovich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

OnBank & Trust Co. v. Dimovich

197 A.D.2d 857, 604 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9227

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 197 A.D.2d 857 (OnBank & Trust Co. v. Dimovich) 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

OnBank & Trust Co. v. Dimovich, 197 A.D.2d 857, 604 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: The appeal of defendants from the order denying their motion to reargue must be dismissed because no appeal lies from such an order and there is no basis to designate their motion to reargue as one to renew (see, Empire Ins. Co. v Food City, 167 AD2d 983, 984). Although defendants purport to appeal from an earlier order denying their motion to vacate, that appeal was dismissed automatically because it was not perfected within nine months of the filing of the notice of appeal, no motion to vacate the automatic dismissal was made, and such [858]*858motion would now be untimely (see, 22 NYCRR 1000.3 [b] [2] [i]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J.—Vacate Judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: The appeal of defendants from the order denying their motion to reargue must be dismissed because no appeal lies from such an order and there is no basis to designate their motion to reargue as one to renew (see, Empire Ins. Co. v Food City, 167 AD2d 983, 984). Although defendants purport to appeal from an earlier order denying their motion to vacate, that appeal was dismissed automatically because it was not perfected within nine months of the filing of the notice of appeal, no motion to vacate the automatic dismissal was made, and such [858]*858motion would now be untimely (see, 22 NYCRR 1000.3 [b] [2] [i]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J.—Vacate Judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 857, 604 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/onbank-trust-co-v-dimovich-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack