Schnall v. Ecole Transportation Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schnall v. Ecole Transportation Corp.

281 A.D.2d 533, 721 N.Y.S.2d 808, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2619

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 533 (Schnall v. Ecole Transportation Corp.) 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

Schnall v. Ecole Transportation Corp., 281 A.D.2d 533, 721 N.Y.S.2d 808, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), entered December 13, 1999, as, in effect, upon reargument, adhered to so much of an order of the same court entered April 22, 1999, as denied that branch of her motion which was to compel the defendants to respond to interrogatories.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the motion at issue was one for reargument (see, CPLR 2221; Santana v Sterling, 278 AD2d 219). However, the order is appealable because the Supreme Court, in effect, granted reargument and, upon reargument, addressed the merits of the motion and adhered to its original determination (see, CPLR 5517 [a] [1]; Sorg v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 248 AD2d 622; Matter of Gabriele v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 239 AD2d 575; O’Hara v Dwyer, 213 AD2d 406).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to compel the defendants to respond to interrogatories (see, CPLR 3130 [1]; see also, Guarino v Mine Safety Appliance Co., 25 NY2d 460; Farca v Semah, 181 AD2d 757).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, 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, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), entered December 13, 1999, as, in effect, upon reargument, adhered to so much of an order of the same court entered April 22, 1999, as denied that branch of her motion which was to compel the defendants to respond to interrogatories.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the motion at issue was one for reargument (see, CPLR 2221; Santana v Sterling, 278 AD2d 219). However, the order is appealable because the Supreme Court, in effect, granted reargument and, upon reargument, addressed the merits of the motion and adhered to its original determination (see, CPLR 5517 [a] [1]; Sorg v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 248 AD2d 622; Matter of Gabriele v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 239 AD2d 575; O’Hara v Dwyer, 213 AD2d 406).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to compel the defendants to respond to interrogatories (see, CPLR 3130 [1]; see also, Guarino v Mine Safety Appliance Co., 25 NY2d 460; Farca v Semah, 181 AD2d 757).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 533, 721 N.Y.S.2d 808, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schnall-v-ecole-transportation-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack