From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clissuras v. Concord Villiage Owners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 18, 2002
299 A.D.2d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-08946, 2002-02114

Argued October 21, 2002.

November 18, 2002.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), dated April 23, 2001, as denied her motion, denominated as one to vacate prior orders of the same court dated November 28, 2000, and December 11, 2000, respectively, and granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was to impose a sanction on the plaintiff pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and (2) an order of the same court dated August 27, 2001, as denied her motion denominated as one to vacate the order dated April 23, 2001.

Alice Clissuras, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Krez Peisner, New York, N.Y. (Kathi Peisner of counsel), for respondents.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated August 27, 2001, and the appeal from so much of the order dated April 23, 2001, as denied the plaintiff's motion to vacate the orders dated November 28, 2000, and December 11, 2000, respectively, are dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that so much of the order dated April 23, 2001, as granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was to impose a sanction pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

Although characterized as motions to vacate prior orders of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff's motions were, in fact, motions to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see Bossio v. Fiorillo, 222 A.D.2d 476, 477).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in concluding that the plaintiff's conduct was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and imposing a sanction against the plaintiff in the form of costs incurred by the defendants in defending her repeated motions seeking the same relief (see Mancini v. Mancini, 245 A.D.2d 518; Matter of Gordon v. Marrone, 202 A.D.2d 104).

FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, TOWNES and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Clissuras v. Concord Villiage Owners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 18, 2002
299 A.D.2d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Clissuras v. Concord Villiage Owners

Case Details

Full title:ALICE CLISSURAS, APPELLANT, v. CONCORD VILLAGE OWNERS, INC., ET AL.…

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

Date published: Nov 18, 2002

Citations

299 A.D.2d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
749 N.Y.S.2d 736

Citing Cases

VAN DEVENTER v. CS SCF MANAGEMENT LTD.

A movant is required to present all arguments when seeking relief in the same motion, in the interests of…