Rabbenu v. 26 Adar N.B. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rabbenu v. 26 Adar N.B. Corp.

282 A.D.2d 642, 723 N.Y.S.2d 711, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4024

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

DecidedApril 23, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 642 (Rabbenu v. 26 Adar N.B. Corp.) 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

Rabbenu v. 26 Adar N.B. Corp., 282 A.D.2d 642, 723 N.Y.S.2d 711, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4024 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated June 2, 1999, which denied its motion, denominated as one for renewal, but which was, in effect, one to reargue a prior motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument.

The plaintiff’s motion, characterized as one for renewal, was not based upon new facts that were unavailable at the time of its motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the plaintiff s [643]*643motion was, in fact, one to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Frisenda v X Large Enters., 280 AD2d 514; CPLR 2221). Bracken, P. J., Florio, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated June 2, 1999, which denied its motion, denominated as one for renewal, but which was, in effect, one to reargue a prior motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument.

The plaintiff’s motion, characterized as one for renewal, was not based upon new facts that were unavailable at the time of its motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the plaintiff s [643]*643motion was, in fact, one to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Frisenda v X Large Enters., 280 AD2d 514; CPLR 2221). Bracken, P. J., Florio, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 642, 723 N.Y.S.2d 711, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rabbenu-v-26-adar-nb-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack