Thomas v. Borakove

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Borakove

235 A.D.2d 279, 652 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 264

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 279 (Thomas v. Borakove) 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

Thomas v. Borakove, 235 A.D.2d 279, 652 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from or[280]*280der, Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), entered March 20, 1995, which denied petitioner’s motion to renew or reargue an order, same court and Justice, dismissing a CPLR article 78 proceeding that challenged respondent Medical Examiner’s denial of petitioner’s Freedom of Information Law request for autopsy reports, unanimously dismissed as taken from a nonappealable order, without costs.

The motion to renew or reargue which was based on an intervening decision of a court of coordinate jurisdiction, not new or additional facts, was properly treated by the IAS Court as one for reargument (cf., Matter of Huie, 20 NY2d 568, 572), denial of which is nonappealable (Matter of Medina v Brown, 213 AD2d 195). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Appeal from or[280]*280der, Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), entered March 20, 1995, which denied petitioner’s motion to renew or reargue an order, same court and Justice, dismissing a CPLR article 78 proceeding that challenged respondent Medical Examiner’s denial of petitioner’s Freedom of Information Law request for autopsy reports, unanimously dismissed as taken from a nonappealable order, without costs.

The motion to renew or reargue which was based on an intervening decision of a court of coordinate jurisdiction, not new or additional facts, was properly treated by the IAS Court as one for reargument (cf., Matter of Huie, 20 NY2d 568, 572), denial of which is nonappealable (Matter of Medina v Brown, 213 AD2d 195). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 279, 652 N.Y.S.2d 518, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-borakove-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack