From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Onorato v. Sangiovanni

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 18, 1996
233 A.D.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

November 18, 1996.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated April 3, 1995, which denied their motion denominated as one for renewal and reargument of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Before: Santucci, J.P., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ.


Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendants' motion, characterized as one for renewal and reargument of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, actually is a motion to reargue because it was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time they submitted their motion for summary judgment ( see, Mgrditchian v Donato, 141 AD2d 513; Matter of Jones v Marcy, 135 AD2d 887, 888). Since denial of a motion to reargue is not appealable ( see, Cherchio v Alley, 111 AD2d 541, 542; Salisbury v Smith, 99 AD2d 581), the appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

Onorato v. Sangiovanni

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 18, 1996
233 A.D.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Onorato v. Sangiovanni

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL ONORATO, Respondent, v. LAZZARO SANGIOVANNI et al., Defendants and…

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

Date published: Nov 18, 1996

Citations

233 A.D.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
650 N.Y.S.2d 593

Citing Cases

Fried v. Tucker

With regard to the dismissal of the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth affirmative…

Citibank v. Kerszko

It does not matter how a motion is titled by an attorney. What matters is what the motion actually is in…