Ramilo v. 32-78 + 80 Steinway St. Realty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramilo v. 32-78 + 80 Steinway St. Realty

256 A.D.2d 505, 682 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13677

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 505 (Ramilo v. 32-78 + 80 Steinway St. 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

Ramilo v. 32-78 + 80 Steinway St. Realty, 256 A.D.2d 505, 682 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13677 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated November 24, 1997, which denied their motion for reargument of a motion to restore the action to the calendar, and (2) an order of the same court, dated March 23, 1998, which denied their second motion for re-argument.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiffs’ motions, although denominated as motions to “renew and reargue” a prior motion to restore the action to the calendar, are actually motions solely to reargue, as no new matters were raised which were previously unknown (see, [506]*506Rivera v Cambridge Mut. Ins. Co., 136 AD2d 688; DeFreitas v Board of Educ., 129 AD2d 672). Since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, the appeals must be dismissed (see, Cohen v TLC Women’s Servs., 157 AD2d 764). Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated November 24, 1997, which denied their motion for reargument of a motion to restore the action to the calendar, and (2) an order of the same court, dated March 23, 1998, which denied their second motion for re-argument.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiffs’ motions, although denominated as motions to “renew and reargue” a prior motion to restore the action to the calendar, are actually motions solely to reargue, as no new matters were raised which were previously unknown (see, [506]*506Rivera v Cambridge Mut. Ins. Co., 136 AD2d 688; DeFreitas v Board of Educ., 129 AD2d 672). Since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, the appeals must be dismissed (see, Cohen v TLC Women’s Servs., 157 AD2d 764). Miller, J. P., Pizzuto, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 505, 682 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramilo-v-32-78-80-steinway-st-realty-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack