From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. Rockaway One Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1994
202 A.D.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 7, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.).


Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant failed to offer a valid excuse for not submitting the additional fact upon which the motion was based to the court on its initial motion (see, Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568). Therefore, the motion should properly be denominated as one for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Thrift Assns. Serv. Corp. v. Legend of Irvington Joint Venture, 152 A.D.2d 666, 668). In any event, the fact upon which the defendant relied was not material to the ground upon which the Supreme Court based its denial of the motion for summary judgment (see, Frascatore v Mione, 97 A.D.2d 809; Foley v. Roche, supra). Bracken, J.P., Joy, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

King v. Rockaway One Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1994
202 A.D.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

King v. Rockaway One Company

Case Details

Full title:CLEAVE KING, Respondent, v. ROCKAWAY ONE COMPANY, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 7, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 395 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
608 N.Y.S.2d 523

Citing Cases

Toussaint v. Divine Brothers Co.

The plaintiff's motion, denominated as one for renewal and reargument of, inter alia, the prior motion of the…

Segale v. Nu Wave Marine, Inc.

Although the plaintiff denominated one branch of his second motion as being for reargument and renewal, he…