From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pasanella v. Quinn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Dec 27, 2018
167 A.D.3d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

Opinion

7950N Index 650198/12

12-27-2018

In re Marco PASANELLA, et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. James QUINN, Respondent–Respondent, Q Wines, LLC, Respondent.

Law Office of Ernest H. Gelman, New York (Ernest H. Gelman of counsel), for appellants. Sher Tremonte LLP, New York (Mark Cuccaro of counsel), for respondent.


Law Office of Ernest H. Gelman, New York (Ernest H. Gelman of counsel), for appellants.

Sher Tremonte LLP, New York (Mark Cuccaro of counsel), for respondent.

Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Kapnick, Kahn, JJ.

Although denominated a motion to vacate, petitioners' motion is in fact a motion to reargue respondent's cross motionto dismiss the petition (see Johnson v. Banner Intl. Corp., 125 A.D.3d 498, 999 N.Y.S.2d 894 [1st Dept. 2015] ). No appeal lies from the denial of a motion for reargument.

Given petitioners' failure to explain why they waited more than three years after the validity of service on Quinn was placed in issue to seek an extension of time to serve him, we find that the interests of justice do not require that they be afforded additional time for service (see Jakobleff v. Jakobleff, 108 A.D.2d 725, 484 N.Y.S.2d 892 [2d Dept. 1985] ; Umana v. Sofola, 149 A.D.3d 1138, 1139–1140, 53 N.Y.S.3d 343 [2d Dept. 2017] ).

We have considered petitioners' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Pasanella v. Quinn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Dec 27, 2018
167 A.D.3d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
Case details for

Pasanella v. Quinn

Case Details

Full title:In re Marco Pasanella, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. James Quinn…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 27, 2018

Citations

167 A.D.3d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
167 A.D.3d 554
2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 9028

Citing Cases

Citibank v. Kerszko

What matters is what the motion actually is in substance (seeIstomin v. Istomin, 130 A.D.3d 575, 12 N.Y.S.3d…