From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mucciola v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 1991
177 A.D.2d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

November 12, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.).


Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

On March 25, 1988, the instant action was marked off the trial calendar. One year later, the action was automatically dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 (see, e.g., Rosser v. Scacalossi, 140 A.D.2d 318).

On or about March 28, 1989, the plaintiff made the first of three motions to restore her action to the trial calendar. The first motion was allegedly rejected by the Clerk and was never submitted. On or about June 21, 1989, the plaintiff made her second motion to restore her action to the calendar. This motion was denied in an order dated October 10, 1989. On or about November 28, 1989, the plaintiff made the instant motion to restore her action to the calendar, this time characterizing it as a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1). In an order dated February 15, 1990, this motion was likewise denied. The present appeal is from the order dated February 15, 1990, only.

Although the instant motion bore a different label, it was in substance identical to the previous ones. All of these motions were directed toward the attainment of the same relief, i.e., the vacatur of the automatic dismissal of the action, and the restoration of the action to the trial calendar. Although the instant motion may have been supported by certain information which had not been furnished to the court in connection with the plaintiff's second motion, all of the additional information should have been available to the plaintiff at the time that her second motion was made. Since there is no proof that any new facts alleged on the instant motion were unavailable to her at the time of her second motion, the instant motion is, in actuality, for reargument. The appeal must be dismissed because an order denying reargument is not appealable (see, Wodecki v Carty, 167 A.D.2d 398; Tobjy v. Tobjy, 163 A.D.2d 303; Dunn v American Home Assur. Co., 158 A.D.2d 505; Spear v. Herbert, 152 A.D.2d 558; Huttner v. McDaid, 151 A.D.2d 547; Mgrditchian v Donato, 141 A.D.2d 513). Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mucciola v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 1991
177 A.D.2d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Mucciola v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:LOUISE MUCCIOLA, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of JOHN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 12, 1991

Citations

177 A.D.2d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
576 N.Y.S.2d 291

Citing Cases

Wavecrest Apartments Corp. v. Jarmain

The motion, denominated as one for "renewal and reargument", was in fact, for reargument only, because there…

Rockowitz v. Huntington Town House, Inc.

With regard to the June 15, 2000, order, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs' motion. However,…