Purcell v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Purcell v. City of New York

215 A.D.2d 360, 626 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4752

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

DecidedMay 1, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 360 (Purcell v. City of New York) 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

Purcell v. City of New York, 215 A.D.2d 360, 626 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated November 8, 1993, which denied his motion, in effect, to reargue his motion for leave to serve a supplemental verified bill of particulars, which was previously denied by an order of the same court, dated December 23, 1992.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s motion, although denominated as one to "renew”, was in effect a motion to reargue, since the plaintiff did not allege any new facts in support of the motion (see, Elias v Handler, 181 AD2d 656). As no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, the appeal from the November 8, 1993, order must be dismissed.

We note, in any event, that if this Court were to reach the merits of the appeal, we would find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve a supplemental verified bill of particulars since it apparently alleged new injuries and was served after the plaintiff filed a note of issue and statement of readiness (see, Masi v Jackson, 196 AD2d 838). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated November 8, 1993, which denied his motion, in effect, to reargue his motion for leave to serve a supplemental verified bill of particulars, which was previously denied by an order of the same court, dated December 23, 1992.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s motion, although denominated as one to "renew”, was in effect a motion to reargue, since the plaintiff did not allege any new facts in support of the motion (see, Elias v Handler, 181 AD2d 656). As no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, the appeal from the November 8, 1993, order must be dismissed.

We note, in any event, that if this Court were to reach the merits of the appeal, we would find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve a supplemental verified bill of particulars since it apparently alleged new injuries and was served after the plaintiff filed a note of issue and statement of readiness (see, Masi v Jackson, 196 AD2d 838). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 360, 626 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purcell-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack