Rosendale v. Harrison & Burrowes Bridge Constructors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosendale v. Harrison & Burrowes Bridge Constructors, Inc.

78 A.D.3d 680, 909 N.Y.S.2d 911

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

DecidedNovember 3, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 78 A.D.3d 680 (Rosendale v. Harrison & Burrowes Bridge Constructors, Inc.) 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

Rosendale v. Harrison & Burrowes Bridge Constructors, Inc., 78 A.D.3d 680, 909 N.Y.S.2d 911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for negligence, nuisance, trespass, and breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated October 8, 2009, which denied his motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, but which was, in effect, one for leave to reargue that branch of the defendant’s prior motion which was to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216, which had been determined in a prior order of the same court dated July 20, 2009.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiffs motion, denominated as one for leave to renew or reargue, was not based on new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). Thus, the motion, although denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, was, in actuality, a motion for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see Frazzetta v P.C. Celano Contr., 54 AD3d 806 [2008]; Trahan v Galea, 48 AD3d 791, 792 [2008]; Eight In One Pet Prods, v Janeo Press, Inc., 37 AD3d 402 [2007]; Rivera v Toruno, 19 AD3d 473, 474 [2005]; Koehler v Town of Smithtown, 305 AD2d 550, 551 [2003]).

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

—In an action to recover damages for negligence, nuisance, trespass, and breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated October 8, 2009, which denied his motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, but which was, in effect, one for leave to reargue that branch of the defendant’s prior motion which was to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3216, which had been determined in a prior order of the same court dated July 20, 2009.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiffs motion, denominated as one for leave to renew or reargue, was not based on new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). Thus, the motion, although denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, was, in actuality, a motion for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see Frazzetta v P.C. Celano Contr., 54 AD3d 806 [2008]; Trahan v Galea, 48 AD3d 791, 792 [2008]; Eight In One Pet Prods, v Janeo Press, Inc., 37 AD3d 402 [2007]; Rivera v Toruno, 19 AD3d 473, 474 [2005]; Koehler v Town of Smithtown, 305 AD2d 550, 551 [2003]).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 680, 909 N.Y.S.2d 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosendale-v-harrison-burrowes-bridge-constructors-inc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack