Otalora v. Solimeo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Otalora v. Solimeo

276 A.D.2d 473, 713 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9818

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 276 A.D.2d 473 (Otalora v. Solimeo) 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

Otalora v. Solimeo, 276 A.D.2d 473, 713 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9818 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant, Luigi Solimeo, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated September 16, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for reargument, and upon reargument, granted the plaintiffs leave to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint substituting Palian, Inc., as the defendant in place of Luigi Solimeo.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The defendant is not aggrieved by the order appealed from, and therefore has no standing to appeal (see, CPLR 5511; Berrios v Rockefeller Group, 212 AD2d 495; Gomberg v Gorman, 117 AD2d 583). Santucci, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant, Luigi Solimeo, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated September 16, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for reargument, and upon reargument, granted the plaintiffs leave to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint substituting Palian, Inc., as the defendant in place of Luigi Solimeo.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The defendant is not aggrieved by the order appealed from, and therefore has no standing to appeal (see, CPLR 5511; Berrios v Rockefeller Group, 212 AD2d 495; Gomberg v Gorman, 117 AD2d 583). Santucci, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 473, 713 N.Y.S.2d 879, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otalora-v-solimeo-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack