Matter of Williamson

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth DepartmentDec 21, 1979
73 A.D.2d 836 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Luming Cafe, Inc. v. Birman

    …However, the court was in error in concluding that the motion was untimely. As the court declared in Matter…

  • Nulman v. Hall

    …No appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion for leave to reargue (Matter of Language Dev. Program v…

lock 5 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

December 21, 1979

Appeal from the Monroe Supreme Court.

Present — Cardamone, J.P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Moule, JJ.

Appeal unanimously dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: We dismiss this appeal without prejudice to appellant Russo's right to renew the application for reargument. Denial of a motion for leave to reargue is not appealable (Matter of Hooker v. Town Bd. of Town of Guilderland, 60 A.D.2d 684; American Bank Trust Co. v. Lichtenstein, 48 A.D.2d 790, affd 39 N.Y.2d 857; Roberts v Connelly, 35 A.D.2d 813; Matter of Bauer [MVAIC], 31 A.D.2d 239, 244). Although CPLR 2221 which deals with motions for leave to reargue contains no time limitations, it is well settled that a motion to reargue may not be used by a party to extend its time to appeal and such motion must be made before the expiration of the time in which to appeal from the determination of the original motion (Matter of Huie [Furman], 20 N.Y.2d 568; Liberty Nat. Bank Trust Co. v. Bero Constr. Corp., 29 A.D.2d 627). However, on this record there was a timely application made by a party. Since the parties before the court on the original proceeding had inseparable interests, it would not be contrary to CPLR 2221 for the court to entertain a motion to reargue.

An alternative to Lexis that does not break the bank.

Casetext does more than Lexis for less than $65 per month.