From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bilello v. Genesis Seafood, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 15, 2004
12 A.D.3d 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-05663.

November 15, 2004.

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, Elsie Rockett appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated May 13, 2003, which denied her motion to vacate the note of issue, and (2), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated August 4, 2003, which, upon, in effect, granting reargument, adhered to its original determination.

Before: Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the appeal from the order dated May 13, 2003, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated August 4, 2003, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated August 4, 2003, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.

Since Elsie Rockett is not a party to this action, the Supreme Court properly denied her motion to vacate the note of issue. Even if she was attempting to make the motion on behalf of the defendants Genesis Seafood, Inc., G. Rockett Sons, Inc., and G. Rockett and Sons Lobster Co., Inc., as a non-attorney she could not do so ( see CPLR 321 [a]; World on Columbus v. L.C.K. Rest. Group, 260 AD2d 323, 324; Evans v. Conley, 124 AD2d 981, 982).


Summaries of

Bilello v. Genesis Seafood, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 15, 2004
12 A.D.3d 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Bilello v. Genesis Seafood, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JAMES BILELLO et al., Respondents, v. GENESIS SEAFOOD, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 15, 2004

Citations

12 A.D.3d 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
783 N.Y.S.2d 876

Citing Cases

Ernest & Maryanna Jeremias Family P'ship, L.P. v. Sadykov

This result is consistent with the general rule against lay practice in the courts (Judiciary Law §§ 478, 484…

Boente v. Peter C. Kurth Office of Architecture & Planning, P.C.

As the plaintiff correctly contends, the Supreme Court erred in accepting an untimely, pro se answer from the…