Stewart v. Donato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stewart v. Donato

140 A.D.2d 787, 527 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8482

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

DecidedMay 5, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.2d 787 (Stewart v. Donato) 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

Stewart v. Donato, 140 A.D.2d 787, 527 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Kane, J. P.

The order appealed from, while designated as the denial of a motion to renew, is in fact, an appeal from a denial of a motion to reargue a prior order which denied reargument; as such, it is nonappealable (see, Salisbury v Smith, 99 AD2d 581).

A motion to renew must be based upon new facts (see, Matter of Hooker v Town Bd., 60 AD2d 684). We find no merit in plaintiff’s contention that a prior decision of this court upon appeal from an order dismissing the complaint against defendant Anthony Donato extended the duty of care owed by Donato to plaintiff and, thus, formed the basis for a motion to renew (see, Stewart v Wilkinson, 127 AD2d 962). The decision in question merely reaffirmed existing law (see, Hayes v Malkan, 26 NY2d 295). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Harvey and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

— Kane, J. P.

The order appealed from, while designated as the denial of a motion to renew, is in fact, an appeal from a denial of a motion to reargue a prior order which denied reargument; as such, it is nonappealable (see, Salisbury v Smith, 99 AD2d 581).

A motion to renew must be based upon new facts (see, Matter of Hooker v Town Bd., 60 AD2d 684). We find no merit in plaintiff’s contention that a prior decision of this court upon appeal from an order dismissing the complaint against defendant Anthony Donato extended the duty of care owed by Donato to plaintiff and, thus, formed the basis for a motion to renew (see, Stewart v Wilkinson, 127 AD2d 962). The decision in question merely reaffirmed existing law (see, Hayes v Malkan, 26 NY2d 295). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Harvey and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 787, 527 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-donato-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack