Roman v. Konis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roman v. Konis

254 A.D.2d 269, 678 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10097

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 5, 1998·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover [270] damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), entered September 12, 1997, which denied their motion, denominated as one for renewal and reargument of the plaintiffs’ motion to restore the case to the trial calendar, but which was, in effect, a motion solely to reargue the prior motion.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ motion, denominated as one for renewal and reargument, was, in effect, a motion to reargue, since the purportedly new material could have been submitted in support of the original motion to restore the case to the trial calendar (see, Taylor v Brooklyn Hosp., 187 AD2d 714, 715; Echeverri v Flushing Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 123 AD2d 818, 819). Consequently, the order denying the motion is not appealable (see, Ackermann v Town of Riverhead, 245 AD2d 404; Castellitto v Atlantic & Pac. Co., 244 AD2d 379; Guigui v Bonnie Castle Resort, 239 AD2d 315). Miller, J. P., Thompson, 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 to recover [270] damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), entered September 12, 1997, which denied their motion, denominated as one for renewal and reargument of the plaintiffs’ motion to restore the case to the trial calendar, but which was, in effect, a motion solely to reargue the prior motion.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ motion, denominated as one for renewal and reargument, was, in effect, a motion to reargue, since the purportedly new material could have been submitted in support of the original motion to restore the case to the trial calendar (see, Taylor v Brooklyn Hosp., 187 AD2d 714, 715; Echeverri v Flushing Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 123 AD2d 818, 819). Consequently, the order denying the motion is not appealable (see, Ackermann v Town of Riverhead, 245 AD2d 404; Castellitto v Atlantic & Pac. Co., 244 AD2d 379; Guigui v Bonnie Castle Resort, 239 AD2d 315). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Roman v. Konis, 254 A.D.2d 269, 678 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10097 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

254 A.D.2d 269 (Roman v. Konis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related