Rosen v. Rosenholc

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosen v. Rosenholc

303 A.D.2d 230, 755 N.Y.S.2d 607, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2526

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 13, 2003·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered on or about June 13, 2001, which denied the motion of appellant, plaintiffs’ former attorney, to hold plaintiffs and their present attorneys in contempt, and to reargue and/or renew a prior order fixing appellant’s charging lien, unanimously affirmed, insofar as it denied contempt and renewal, and the appeal otherwise dismissed, with costs.

There is no merit to appellant’s claim that the motion court, in denying his motion for contempt, sua sponte altered and disregarded the plain meaning of its own prior order. The denial of reargument is not appealable (Haberman v Wright, 295 AD2d 142 [2002]), and since appellant’s lien was fixed without reference to any potential recovery, the settlement of the underlying action is not a new fact that can support renewal (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered on or about June 13, 2001, which denied the motion of appellant, plaintiffs’ former attorney, to hold plaintiffs and their present attorneys in contempt, and to reargue and/or renew a prior order fixing appellant’s charging lien, unanimously affirmed, insofar as it denied contempt and renewal, and the appeal otherwise dismissed, with costs.

There is no merit to appellant’s claim that the motion court, in denying his motion for contempt, sua sponte altered and disregarded the plain meaning of its own prior order. The denial of reargument is not appealable (Haberman v Wright, 295 AD2d 142 [2002]), and since appellant’s lien was fixed without reference to any potential recovery, the settlement of the underlying action is not a new fact that can support renewal (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). Concur — Buckley, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Rosen v. Rosenholc, 303 A.D.2d 230, 755 N.Y.S.2d 607, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

303 A.D.2d 230 (Rosen v. Rosenholc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related