From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mathews v. Visual Thermoforming

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 18, 1992
187 A.D.2d 965 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

November 18, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Niagara County, Koshian, J.

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


Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: The motion, denominated by defendant Prescotech A Company of Tennetics, Inc. and Supreme Court as one to "reargue and/or renew", was in fact a motion to reargue. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, Matter of Hurley v Avon Cent. School Dist., 187 A.D.2d 982 [decided herewith]; Kirchoff v International Harvester Co., 138 A.D.2d 820, 821; Matter of Jones v Marcy, 135 A.D.2d 887, 888).


Summaries of

Mathews v. Visual Thermoforming

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 18, 1992
187 A.D.2d 965 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Mathews v. Visual Thermoforming

Case Details

Full title:EUGENE MATHEWS, Respondent, v. VISUAL THERMOFORMING, Respondent, and…

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

Date published: Nov 18, 1992

Citations

187 A.D.2d 965 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)