From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DeMeo v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1999
262 A.D.2d 270 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted April 12, 1999

June 1, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the. plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated January 5, 1998, which denied his motion denominated as one to renew and reargue a prior motion to restore this action to the trial calendar.

Frank X. Kilgannon, Mineola, N.Y., for appellant.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

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

The plaintiffs motion, although characterized as one for renewal and reargument of the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, was in actuality a motion for reargument since it was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time of the original motion, the denial of which is not appealable ( see, Wodecki v. Carty, 167 A.D.2d 398; Huttner v. McDaid, 151 A.D.2d 547; Mgrditchian v. Donato, 141 A.D.2d 513).


Summaries of

DeMeo v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1999
262 A.D.2d 270 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

DeMeo v. County of Suffolk

Case Details

Full title:FRANK DeMEO, appellant, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, et al., respondents

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 270 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
690 N.Y.S.2d 461

Citing Cases

Piacentini v. Mineola Union Free School Dist

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs. The appellant's motion, characterized as one for reargument…

Matter of Hoffman

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements The petitioner's motion, characterized…