Weber v. Cassius

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weber v. Cassius

46 A.D.2d 976, 362 N.Y.S.2d 248

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 46 A.D.2d 976 (Weber v. Cassius) 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

Weber v. Cassius, 46 A.D.2d 976, 362 N.Y.S.2d 248 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for extension of time to perfect appeal denied, and upon motion of respondent, appeal dismissed, without costs. The memorandum decision of Special Term dated September 24, 1974 indicates that the order sought to be appealed from decided a motion by appellants for leave to renew certain motions which had been previously denied. Special Term determined that the [977]*977papers presented on the motion contained no new evidence which would warrant the vacating of its prior decisions and the motion was therefore denied. Accordingly, it appears that appellants’ motion was in fact one for reargument of their prior applications and it is well established that an order denying such a motion is not appealable (Matter of Biseaglio v. Boshan Taxi, 43 A D 2d 919; Boberts v. Connelly, 35 A D 2d 813). It should also be noted that this court has previously denied appellants’ motion for a stay pending appeal and for the fixing of an undertaking (Weber v. Cassius, mot. decided Oct. 29, 1974). Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Motion for extension of time to perfect appeal denied, and upon motion of respondent, appeal dismissed, without costs. The memorandum decision of Special Term dated September 24, 1974 indicates that the order sought to be appealed from decided a motion by appellants for leave to renew certain motions which had been previously denied. Special Term determined that the [977]*977papers presented on the motion contained no new evidence which would warrant the vacating of its prior decisions and the motion was therefore denied. Accordingly, it appears that appellants’ motion was in fact one for reargument of their prior applications and it is well established that an order denying such a motion is not appealable (Matter of Biseaglio v. Boshan Taxi, 43 A D 2d 919; Boberts v. Connelly, 35 A D 2d 813). It should also be noted that this court has previously denied appellants’ motion for a stay pending appeal and for the fixing of an undertaking (Weber v. Cassius, mot. decided Oct. 29, 1974). Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 976, 362 N.Y.S.2d 248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weber-v-cassius-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack