From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Krongauz v. Rottenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 17, 2003
1 A.D.3d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-10367

Submitted October 22, 2003.

November 17, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), dated September 12, 2002, as upon, in effect, reargument, adhered to its original determination in an order dated March 7, 2001, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d).

Paul Koenigsberg, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Richard S. Weiss of counsel), for appellant.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, THOMAS A. ADAMS, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court, upon granting reargument, properly adhered to the original determination, since the plaintiff failed to show that the Supreme Court had misapprehended any pertinent law or fact ( see CPLR 2221[d]; Pulsifer v. Ardito, 305 A.D.2d 653).

ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY, ADAMS and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Krongauz v. Rottenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 17, 2003
1 A.D.3d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Krongauz v. Rottenstein

Case Details

Full title:MIKHAIL KRONGAUZ, appellant, v. JOSEF ROTTENSTEIN, respondent

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

Date published: Nov 17, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 486 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
767 N.Y.S.2d 244

Citing Cases

Orridge v. Barry

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Upon reargument, the plaintiff failed…

Kantor v. Mesibov

It is well settled that a motion to reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and may be…