SantaMaria v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

SantaMaria v. Schwartz

238 A.D.2d 569, 657 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4387

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

DecidedApril 28, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 569 (SantaMaria v. Schwartz) 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

SantaMaria v. Schwartz, 238 A.D.2d 569, 657 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.), dated February 7, 1996, which denied their motion which was, in effect, to reargue a prior application to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered April 29, 1994, which dismissed the complaint based upon the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with a conditional order of dismissal.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

[570]*570Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the Supreme Court did not err in treating their motion, denominated as one for renewal, as one for reargument. The so-called renewal motion was not based upon either new facts or proof which was unavailable when the original motion was made (see, CPLR 2221; Spa Realty Assocs. v Springs Assocs., 213 AD2d 781; Price v Palagonia, 212 AD2d 765). Furthermore, in support of their motion to renew, the plaintiffs argued in part that the court overlooked significant facts and misapplied the law when it denied the prior motion to vacate dismissal of the complaint. Under these circumstances, the court properly deemed the motion as one for reargument, the denial of which is not appeal-able (see, Savory v Romex Realty Corp., 194 AD2d 601; Kean v Phelps, 186 AD2d 368; 300 W. Realty Co. v City of New York, 99 AD2d 708). Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Florio, 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 medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.), dated February 7, 1996, which denied their motion which was, in effect, to reargue a prior application to vacate a judgment of the same court, entered April 29, 1994, which dismissed the complaint based upon the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with a conditional order of dismissal.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

[570]*570Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the Supreme Court did not err in treating their motion, denominated as one for renewal, as one for reargument. The so-called renewal motion was not based upon either new facts or proof which was unavailable when the original motion was made (see, CPLR 2221; Spa Realty Assocs. v Springs Assocs., 213 AD2d 781; Price v Palagonia, 212 AD2d 765). Furthermore, in support of their motion to renew, the plaintiffs argued in part that the court overlooked significant facts and misapplied the law when it denied the prior motion to vacate dismissal of the complaint. Under these circumstances, the court properly deemed the motion as one for reargument, the denial of which is not appeal-able (see, Savory v Romex Realty Corp., 194 AD2d 601; Kean v Phelps, 186 AD2d 368; 300 W. Realty Co. v City of New York, 99 AD2d 708). Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 569, 657 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santamaria-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack