Waldman v. Bobover Yeshiva Bnei Zion

289 A.D.2d 399, 734 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12182
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 17, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 399 (Waldman v. Bobover Yeshiva Bnei Zion) 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
Waldman v. Bobover Yeshiva Bnei Zion, 289 A.D.2d 399, 734 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12182 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), dated August 21, 2000, which denied his motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendant from interfering with the studies of his children and granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated December 5, 2000, which denied his motion for leave to renew and reargue.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated [400]*400December 5, 2000, as denied that branch of the motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated August 21, 2000, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 5, 2000, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint because it failed to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]).

The branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to renew was properly denied since he failed to offer a reasonable excuse for not submitting the additional facts when the original motion and cross motion were made (see, Morrison v Rosenberg, 278 AD2d 392).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Smith, Adams and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Waldman v. Mosdos Bobov, Inc.
72 A.D.3d 983 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Eisenberg v. HSBC Payment Service Inc.
307 A.D.2d 950 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Bruce v. Lawrence
303 A.D.2d 616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
289 A.D.2d 399, 734 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waldman-v-bobover-yeshiva-bnei-zion-nyappdiv-2001.