Wright v. General Motors Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wright v. General Motors Corp.

96 A.D.2d 510, 464 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19019

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

DecidedJuly 5, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 96 A.D.2d 510 (Wright v. General Motors Corp.) 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

Wright v. General Motors Corp., 96 A.D.2d 510, 464 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19019 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a personal injury action, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), entered July 13, 1983, which denied their motion to reargue. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiffs claim that their motion was in fact a motion to renew. However, they concede that there were no new or additional facts presented in their moving papers since the record before Special Term on the prior motion contained their “additional facts”. Therefore, the motion was in fact a motion to reargue and no appeal lies from the denial of such a motion (see Klatz v Armor Elevator Co., 93 AD2d 633). Damiani, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— In a personal injury action, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), entered July 13, 1983, which denied their motion to reargue. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiffs claim that their motion was in fact a motion to renew. However, they concede that there were no new or additional facts presented in their moving papers since the record before Special Term on the prior motion contained their “additional facts”. Therefore, the motion was in fact a motion to reargue and no appeal lies from the denial of such a motion (see Klatz v Armor Elevator Co., 93 AD2d 633). Damiani, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.2d 510, 464 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-general-motors-corp-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack