Pawlowski v. Plutka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pawlowski v. Plutka

63 A.D.2d 711, 404 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11631

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

DecidedMay 22, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.2d 711 (Pawlowski v. Plutka) 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

Pawlowski v. Plutka, 63 A.D.2d 711, 404 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11631 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 18, 1976, which denied their motion to (a) transfer the action from the Civil Court of the City of New York to the Supreme Court and (b) serve an amended complaint, and did so without prejudice to renew upon proper papers and (2) an order of the same court, dated June 28, 1977, [712]*712which granted reconsideration of a prior motion to reargue the order dated August 18, 1976 and, upon reconsideration, denied the motion. Appeal from the order dated June 28, 1977 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. No appeal lies from an order which, upon reconsideration, denies a motion for reargument. Order dated August 18, 1976 affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In our view, the Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice to its renewal upon proper papers. Martuscello, J. P., Suozzi, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 18, 1976, which denied their motion to (a) transfer the action from the Civil Court of the City of New York to the Supreme Court and (b) serve an amended complaint, and did so without prejudice to renew upon proper papers and (2) an order of the same court, dated June 28, 1977, [712]*712which granted reconsideration of a prior motion to reargue the order dated August 18, 1976 and, upon reconsideration, denied the motion. Appeal from the order dated June 28, 1977 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. No appeal lies from an order which, upon reconsideration, denies a motion for reargument. Order dated August 18, 1976 affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In our view, the Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice to its renewal upon proper papers. Martuscello, J. P., Suozzi, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 711, 404 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pawlowski-v-plutka-nyappdiv-1978.