Opinion
2012-03-8
In re SOCIAL SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 371 on behalf of its member, Sherrie BROWN, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF CORRECTION, Respondent–Respondent.
Kreisberg & Maitland, LLP, New York (Jeffrey L. Kreisberg of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Suzanne K. Colt of counsel), for respondent.
Kreisberg & Maitland, LLP, New York (Jeffrey L. Kreisberg of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Suzanne K. Colt of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered October 19, 2010, which denied petitioner's motion for leave to reargue respondent's cross petition to vacate an interim arbitration award and disqualify the arbitrator, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.
The challenged order could not be interpreted as effectively granting reargument and, upon reargument, adhering to the original determination so as to render it an appealable order. Indeed, the court not only unequivocally “denied” the motion for reargument, but expressly ruled that it did not overlook or misapprehend any facts or law when determining the prior motion ( see William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v. Kassis, 182 A.D.2d 22, 27, 588 N.Y.S.2d 8 [1992], lv. denied in part, dismissed in part 80 N.Y.2d 1005, 592 N.Y.S.2d 665, 607 N.E.2d 812 [1992] ); nor did it adhere to its prior determination on a different ground ( compare Judlau Contr., Inc. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 46 A.D.3d 482, 483, 851 N.Y.S.2d 391 [2007] ). Accordingly, the order denying the motion to reargue is nonappealable ( Cillo v. Resjefal Corp., 300 A.D.2d 146, 751 N.Y.S.2d 727 [2002] ). In any event, even if the challenged order could be considered a grant of reargument, we would find that the court properly adhered to its original determination.