From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lindsay v. Funtime, Inc

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 5, 1992
184 A.D.2d 1036 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

June 5, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Genesee County, Morton, J.

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Boehm, Fallon and Davis, JJ.


Appeal from order insofar as it denied reargument unanimously dismissed without costs and otherwise order affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs' motion insofar as it sought renewal of the original motion. The new evidence upon which plaintiffs purported to rely was not newly discovered and plaintiffs failed to offer an explanation for their failure to submit that evidence in opposition to defendant's original motion (see, Diaz-Tirado v. Rivera, 169 A.D.2d 576, 577, lv dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 989; Matter of Beiny, 132 A.D.2d 190, 210, lv dismissed 71 N.Y.2d 994; Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568). The court's denial of plaintiffs' motion insofar as it sought reargument is not properly before us because no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, Pennino v. Lasersurge, Inc., 178 A.D.2d 939; Empire Ins. Co. v. Food City, 167 A.D.2d 983; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2221:9, at 185).


Summaries of

Lindsay v. Funtime, Inc

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 5, 1992
184 A.D.2d 1036 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Lindsay v. Funtime, Inc

Case Details

Full title:DARLA LINDSAY, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of KELLY…

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

Date published: Jun 5, 1992

Citations

184 A.D.2d 1036 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
585 N.Y.S.2d 263