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

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 230 (Rosen v. Rosenholc) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 230, 755 N.Y.S.2d 607, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosen-v-rosenholc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack