From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wodecki v. Carty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1990
167 A.D.2d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

November 13, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.).


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

The plaintiff's motion, although characterized as one for renewal and reargument of the defendants' motion for summary judgment, was, in actuality, a motion for reargument since it was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time she submitted her original opposition to the motion (see, Huttner v. McDaid, 151 A.D.2d 547; Gulledge v. Adams, 108 A.D.2d 950). An order denying reargument is not appealable (see, Mgrditchian v. Donato, 141 A.D.2d 513; DeFreitas v. Board of Educ., 129 A.D.2d 672). In any event, even if the motion were deemed to be one for renewal, it was properly denied since the plaintiff failed to offer any acceptable excuses for her failure to submit the "additional" material in opposition to the original motion (see, Weisse v. Kamhi, 129 A.D.2d 698; Mayer v. McBrunigan Constr. Corp., 123 A.D.2d 606; Caffee v. Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 352). Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wodecki v. Carty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1990
167 A.D.2d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Wodecki v. Carty

Case Details

Full title:TATIANA WODECKI, Appellant, v. WILLARD CARTY et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Nov 13, 1990

Citations

167 A.D.2d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
561 N.Y.S.2d 810

Citing Cases

Wright v. New York City Transit Authority

We now reverse. Initially, the court did not err in granting the plaintiff's motion which, although…

Wavecrest Apartments Corp. v. Jarmain

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