Rockport Construction Co. v. Boston-Williamsbridge Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rockport Construction Co. v. Boston-Williamsbridge Corp.

237 A.D.2d 107, 655 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2118

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 237 A.D.2d 107 (Rockport Construction Co. v. Boston-Williamsbridge 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

Rockport Construction Co. v. Boston-Williamsbridge Corp., 237 A.D.2d 107, 655 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2118 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about January 26, 1996, which denied plaintiff s motion to reargue a prior order dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

Although plaintiff characterized its motion as one to renew as well as reargue the prior order, from which it did not appeal, in fact the motion was not based on any facts not before the court on the prior motion, and was therefore properly considered as one for reargument only, the denial of which is nonappealable (see, Pan World Constr. Corp. v 791 Park Ave. Corp., 185 AD2d 105, 107, lv dismissed and denied 80 NY2d 1005). Were we to reach the merits, we would affirm since the record demonstrates that plaintiff failed to file a timely note of issue, or set forth a justifiable excuse for its delay in doing so. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about January 26, 1996, which denied plaintiff s motion to reargue a prior order dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

Although plaintiff characterized its motion as one to renew as well as reargue the prior order, from which it did not appeal, in fact the motion was not based on any facts not before the court on the prior motion, and was therefore properly considered as one for reargument only, the denial of which is nonappealable (see, Pan World Constr. Corp. v 791 Park Ave. Corp., 185 AD2d 105, 107, lv dismissed and denied 80 NY2d 1005). Were we to reach the merits, we would affirm since the record demonstrates that plaintiff failed to file a timely note of issue, or set forth a justifiable excuse for its delay in doing so. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 107, 655 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rockport-construction-co-v-boston-williamsbridge-corp-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack