Santiago v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santiago v. New York City Housing Authority

227 A.D.2d 114, 641 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4738

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

DecidedMay 2, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 227 A.D.2d 114 (Santiago v. New York City Housing Authority) 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

Santiago v. New York City Housing Authority, 227 A.D.2d 114, 641 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), [115]*115entered October 13, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for reargument of an order of the same court entered April 17, 1995, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a non-appealable order.

Defendant’s motion for reargument consisted of a reiteration of the arguments made on the original motion for summary judgment based upon the case law on which defendant had relied. No new facts or evidence were presented to the court and defendant specifically stated that the motion was based upon defendant’s belief that the court misapplied the controlling principles of law. The IAS Court in its decision explicitly stated that it was denying defendant’s motion for reargument and no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for reargument (Bell v Toothsavers, Inc., 213 AD2d 199). We note, however, that if an appeal had been timely taken from the court’s decision we would have reversed and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Martinez v Lazaroff, 48 NY2d 819; Abreu v Stratford Realty Assocs., 208 AD2d 465). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), [115]*115entered October 13, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for reargument of an order of the same court entered April 17, 1995, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a non-appealable order.

Defendant’s motion for reargument consisted of a reiteration of the arguments made on the original motion for summary judgment based upon the case law on which defendant had relied. No new facts or evidence were presented to the court and defendant specifically stated that the motion was based upon defendant’s belief that the court misapplied the controlling principles of law. The IAS Court in its decision explicitly stated that it was denying defendant’s motion for reargument and no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for reargument (Bell v Toothsavers, Inc., 213 AD2d 199). We note, however, that if an appeal had been timely taken from the court’s decision we would have reversed and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Martinez v Lazaroff, 48 NY2d 819; Abreu v Stratford Realty Assocs., 208 AD2d 465). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 114, 641 N.Y.S.2d 663, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santiago-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack