From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Freed v. Best

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Sep 25, 2019
175 A.D.3d 1493 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

2016–09067 Index No. 1247/14

09-25-2019

Todd E. FREED, et al., Respondents, v. Barbara BEST, Defendant, Zarko Svatovic, Appellant.

Zarko Svatovic, New York, NY, appellant pro se. Esseks, Hefter, Angel, Di Talia & Pasca, LLP, Riverhead, N.Y. (Anthony C. Pasca and Lisa J. Ross of counsel), for respondents.


Zarko Svatovic, New York, NY, appellant pro se.

Esseks, Hefter, Angel, Di Talia & Pasca, LLP, Riverhead, N.Y. (Anthony C. Pasca and Lisa J. Ross of counsel), for respondents.

SHERI S. ROMAN, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER Cross motion by the plaintiffs, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order appealed from, in effect, denied reargument. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated January 11, 2017, that branch of the cross motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order appealed from, in effect, denied reargument was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the cross motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is

ORDERED that the branch of the cross motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order appealed from, in effect, denied reargument is granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiffs commenced this action seeking to permanently enjoin the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' property rights, a judgment declaring that the defendants have no interest or rights in the property, and damages for trespass. The defendant Zarko Svatovic made a motion, denominated as one to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for failure to join necessary parties. However, this issue was raised in two prior motions, both of which were denied. The subject motion was, in effect, a motion for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see Capital One Bank v. Phillips, 161 A.D.3d 1035, 1036, 78 N.Y.S.3d 203 ; Schwarz v. Schwarz, 150 A.D.3d 915, 915, 56 N.Y.S.3d 122 ).

ROMAN, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, MALTESE and LASALLE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Freed v. Best

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Sep 25, 2019
175 A.D.3d 1493 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Freed v. Best

Case Details

Full title:Todd E. Freed, et al., respondents, v. Barbara Best, defendant, Zarko…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Sep 25, 2019

Citations

175 A.D.3d 1493 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
106 N.Y.S.3d 897
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 6749

Citing Cases

US Bank National Association v. Javier

Although the plaintiff's September 2018 motion was denominated as one to vacate the conditional order, it…

US Bank N.A. v. Javier

Although the plaintiffs September 2018 motion was denominated as one to vacate the conditional order, it…