Schumer v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schumer v. Levine

208 A.D.2d 605, 618 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9596

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 605 (Schumer v. Levine) 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

Schumer v. Levine, 208 A.D.2d 605, 618 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for embezzlement and fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated July 6, 1993, which denied his motion to reargue the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which was granted by order of the same court, dated June 4, 1993.

[606]*606Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff’s motion must be considered a motion to reargue rather than to renew, because he presented no new facts which were not presented in opposition to the original motion (see, Caffee v Arnold, 104 AD2d 352). No appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, DeFreitas v Board of Educ., 129 AD2d 672). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, 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 embezzlement and fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated July 6, 1993, which denied his motion to reargue the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which was granted by order of the same court, dated June 4, 1993.

[606]*606Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff’s motion must be considered a motion to reargue rather than to renew, because he presented no new facts which were not presented in opposition to the original motion (see, Caffee v Arnold, 104 AD2d 352). No appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, DeFreitas v Board of Educ., 129 AD2d 672). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 605, 618 N.Y.S.2d 225, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schumer-v-levine-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack