From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schumer v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 11, 1994
618 N.Y.S.2d 225 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 11, 1994

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


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

The plaintiff's motion must be considered a motion to reargue rather than to renew, because he presented no new facts which were not presented in opposition to the original motion (see, Caffee v. Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 352). No appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, DeFreitas v. Board of Educ., 129 A.D.2d 672). Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Schumer v. Levine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 11, 1994
618 N.Y.S.2d 225 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Schumer v. Levine

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY SCHUMER, Appellant, v. SEYMOUR LEVINE et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Oct 11, 1994

Citations

618 N.Y.S.2d 225 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
618 N.Y.S.2d 225

Citing Cases

Toriola v. U-Store-It

Plaintiff's appeal from said order is dismissed since an appeal to this court may be taken as of right only…

Schoenfeld v. Shonfeld [2d Dept 1999

Since the defendant's motion, denominated as one for renewal and reargument, was not based upon new evidence…