From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Melendez v. Methodist Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 18, 1994
203 A.D.2d 435 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

April 18, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant's contention that the court erred in granting the defendant Hong's motion for renewal or reargument is without merit. Motions for reargument are addressed to the sound discretion of the Judge who decided the previous motion and may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision (see, Rodney v New York Pyrotechnic Prods. Co., 112 A.D.2d 410; Delcrete Corp. v Kling, 67 A.D.2d 1099). Here, questions of fact existed as to the actions of the appellant with respect to the infant plaintiff.

We have considered the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Miller, J.P., Lawrence, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Melendez v. Methodist Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 18, 1994
203 A.D.2d 435 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Melendez v. Methodist Hospital

Case Details

Full title:ALICIA C. MELENDEZ, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, MAUREEN…

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

Date published: Apr 18, 1994

Citations

203 A.D.2d 435 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
610 N.Y.S.2d 855

Citing Cases

SIEGER v. ZAK

( Beverage Marketing USA, Inc. v South Beach Beverage Company,Inc., 58 AD3d 657, 873 NYS2d 84, 2nd Dept.,…

Leemilt's Petro., Inc. v. Pathmark Stores, Inc.

DECISION It is well settled that reargument may only be granted where the court has overlooked or…