From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Piacentini v. Mineola Union Free School Dist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 2001
279 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted December 13, 2000.

January 16, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff Roger Piacentini appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), dated March 9, 2000, which denied his motion, in effect, for reargument.

Deutsch Sneider, Glendale, N.Y. (Eric G. Slepian of counsel), for appellant.

Barry, McTiernan Moore, New York, N.Y. (Laurel A. Wedinger of counsel), for respondent.

Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, ACTING P.J., FRED T. SANTUCCI, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The appellant's motion, characterized as one for reargument and renewal, was in actuality a motion for leave to reargue because it was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time of the original motion (see, McCorvey v. Schoulder, 273 A.D.2d 207; Daly v. Messina, 267 A.D.2d 345; Lupoli v. Venus Labs., 264 A.D.2d 820; DeMeo v. County of Suffolk, 262 A.D.2d 270; Knutson v. Sand, 249 A.D.2d 451; Bossio v. Fiorillo, 222 A.D.2d 476). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from the denial of a motion for leave to reargue (see, Schumer v. Levine, 208 A.D.2d 605; DeFreitas v. Board of Educ., 129 A.D.2d 672).


Summaries of

Piacentini v. Mineola Union Free School Dist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 16, 2001
279 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Piacentini v. Mineola Union Free School Dist

Case Details

Full title:ROGER PIACENTINI, APPELLANT, ET AL., PLAINTIFF, v. MINEOLA UNION FREE…

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

Date published: Jan 16, 2001

Citations

279 A.D.2d 513 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
718 N.Y.S.2d 888

Citing Cases

Williams v. Peralta

The court denied reargument and renewal. Initially, we note that the defendants' motion, denominated as one…

Sabatini v. Inc. Village of Kensington

Therefore, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the action on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to…