Schiavone v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schiavone v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund

261 A.D.2d 237, 688 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5513

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

DecidedMay 18, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 237 (Schiavone v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund) 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

Schiavone v. Board of Trustees of New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund, 261 A.D.2d 237, 688 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on or about January 28,1998, which denied petitioner’s application to reargue the merits of his previously dismissed petition challenging respondent’s denial of accident disability retirement benefits, unanimously dismissed as taken from a nonappealable order, without costs.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of his dismissed petition, which motion merely argued that the court had misapprehended certain facts on its initial consideration of the petition, is properly viewed as a motion for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Bittorf v 225 W. End Ave. Assocs., 232 AD2d 344; Berman v Szpilzinger, 180 AD2d 612).

In any event, were we to review the merits of the petition, respondent’s determination would be upheld. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on or about January 28,1998, which denied petitioner’s application to reargue the merits of his previously dismissed petition challenging respondent’s denial of accident disability retirement benefits, unanimously dismissed as taken from a nonappealable order, without costs.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of his dismissed petition, which motion merely argued that the court had misapprehended certain facts on its initial consideration of the petition, is properly viewed as a motion for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Bittorf v 225 W. End Ave. Assocs., 232 AD2d 344; Berman v Szpilzinger, 180 AD2d 612).

In any event, were we to review the merits of the petition, respondent’s determination would be upheld. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 237, 688 N.Y.S.2d 882, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schiavone-v-board-of-trustees-of-new-york-city-fire-department-article-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack