P & S 95th Street Associates, LLC v. Nilde Realty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

P & S 95th Street Associates, LLC v. Nilde Realty

140 A.D.3d 642, 33 N.Y.S.3d 712

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

DecidedJune 28, 2016

Docket154511/13 1619NA 1619N

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.3d 642 (P & S 95th Street Associates, LLC v. Nilde Realty) 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

P & S 95th Street Associates, LLC v. Nilde Realty, 140 A.D.3d 642, 33 N.Y.S.3d 712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered August 11, 2015, which, to the extent appealable, denied appellants’ motion to vacate the court’s March 13, 2014 order, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from so much of the August 2015 order as purports to be from the denial of appellants’ motion to renew, unanimously *643 dismissed, without costs, as taken from the denial of reargument.

The lower court properly denied appellants’ motion to renew, as appellants’ purported “new facts” are not new facts, but rather new legal arguments. Accordingly, appellants’ motion is more accurately characterized as a motion to reargue, and no appeal lies from the court’s denial of a motion to reargue (see Forbes v Giacomo, 130 AD3d 428 [1st Dept 2015], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 26 NY3d 1047 [2015]; Federal Ins. Co. v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 157 AD2d 460, 460 [1st Dept 1990]).

With respect to appellants’ motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), even if the motion were timely, appellants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse (Northern Source, LLC v Kousouros, 106 AD3d 571, 572 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Chelsea Antoinette A. [Anna S.J, 88 AD3d 627 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered August 11, 2015, which, to the extent appealable, denied appellants’ motion to vacate the court’s March 13, 2014 order, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from so much of the August 2015 order as purports to be from the denial of appellants’ motion to renew, unanimously *643 dismissed, without costs, as taken from the denial of reargument.

The lower court properly denied appellants’ motion to renew, as appellants’ purported “new facts” are not new facts, but rather new legal arguments. Accordingly, appellants’ motion is more accurately characterized as a motion to reargue, and no appeal lies from the court’s denial of a motion to reargue (see Forbes v Giacomo, 130 AD3d 428 [1st Dept 2015], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 26 NY3d 1047 [2015]; Federal Ins. Co. v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 157 AD2d 460, 460 [1st Dept 1990]).

With respect to appellants’ motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), even if the motion were timely, appellants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse (Northern Source, LLC v Kousouros, 106 AD3d 571, 572 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Chelsea Antoinette A. [Anna S.J, 88 AD3d 627 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 642, 33 N.Y.S.3d 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/p-s-95th-street-associates-llc-v-nilde-realty-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack