Wolf v. Piamenta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wolf v. Piamenta

222 A.D.2d 579, 636 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13000

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 579 (Wolf v. Piamenta) 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

Wolf v. Piamenta, 222 A.D.2d 579, 636 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated July 27, 1994, which denied the defendants’ motion, denominated as a motion for renewal /reargument, but which was, in fact, a motion for reargument of a prior motion to vacate a judgment entered upon the default of the defendants in appearing when the case was called from the trial calendar.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that the defendants’ motion, denominated as a motion for renewal/reargument, was essentially a motion to reargue, since it was not based upon new facts unavailable at the time of the original motion (see, Rebell v Trask, 220 AD2d 594). Accordingly, since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, the appeal must be dismissed (see, Freeman Provisions v Investors Ins. Co., 220 AD2d 380). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, 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 personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated July 27, 1994, which denied the defendants’ motion, denominated as a motion for renewal /reargument, but which was, in fact, a motion for reargument of a prior motion to vacate a judgment entered upon the default of the defendants in appearing when the case was called from the trial calendar.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that the defendants’ motion, denominated as a motion for renewal/reargument, was essentially a motion to reargue, since it was not based upon new facts unavailable at the time of the original motion (see, Rebell v Trask, 220 AD2d 594). Accordingly, since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, the appeal must be dismissed (see, Freeman Provisions v Investors Ins. Co., 220 AD2d 380). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 579, 636 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-piamenta-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack