Stein v. County of Westchester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stein v. County of Westchester

172 A.D.2d 742

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

DecidedApril 22, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 742 (Stein v. County of Westchester) 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

Stein v. County of Westchester, 172 A.D.2d 742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered October 23, 1989, which denied his motion for "renewal” of his motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering, which was denied by an order of the same court dated May 15, 1989.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

Since the plaintiff’s motion was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time he submitted his original motion for leave to amend the complaint, it was not a motion for renewal, but a motion for reargument (see, Spear v Herbert, 152 AD2d 558), the denial of which is not appealable (see, [743]*743De Freitas v Board of Educ., 129 AD2d 672). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Harwood and Balletta, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered October 23, 1989, which denied his motion for "renewal” of his motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering, which was denied by an order of the same court dated May 15, 1989.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

Since the plaintiff’s motion was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time he submitted his original motion for leave to amend the complaint, it was not a motion for renewal, but a motion for reargument (see, Spear v Herbert, 152 AD2d 558), the denial of which is not appealable (see, [743]*743De Freitas v Board of Educ., 129 AD2d 672). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stein-v-county-of-westchester-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack