Sainphor v. Hurtt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sainphor v. Hurtt

302 A.D.2d 511, 755 N.Y.S.2d 257

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 511 (Sainphor v. Hurtt) 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

Sainphor v. Hurtt, 302 A.D.2d 511, 755 N.Y.S.2d 257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated April 18, 2002, which, in effect, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to reargue the defendant’s prior motion for summary judgment which was determined in an order of the same court, dated December 23, 1999, and, upon reargument, modified that order by restoring the action on behalf of the plaintiffs Anthony Sainphor, Zillah Edghill, and Zadkijah Edghill.

Ordered that the order dated April 18, 2002, is reversed, with costs, the motion is denied, and the order dated December 23, 1999, is reinstated.

The Supreme Court improperly granted the motion for leave to reargue because the motion was untimely (see Matter of Zahoundanis, 289 AD2d 411 [2001]). Feuerstein, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated April 18, 2002, which, in effect, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to reargue the defendant’s prior motion for summary judgment which was determined in an order of the same court, dated December 23, 1999, and, upon reargument, modified that order by restoring the action on behalf of the plaintiffs Anthony Sainphor, Zillah Edghill, and Zadkijah Edghill.

Ordered that the order dated April 18, 2002, is reversed, with costs, the motion is denied, and the order dated December 23, 1999, is reinstated.

The Supreme Court improperly granted the motion for leave to reargue because the motion was untimely (see Matter of Zahoundanis, 289 AD2d 411 [2001]). Feuerstein, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 511, 755 N.Y.S.2d 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sainphor-v-hurtt-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack