From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vernooy v. Vernooy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 31, 1988
138 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

March 31, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Cortland County (Bryant, J.).


In this matrimonial action, plaintiff made a motion for "reargument and/or renewal" of a prior order which modified a judgment of divorce by reducing from $400 to $150 the amount of weekly maintenance defendant was required to pay plaintiff. Supreme Court treated the motion as one for reargument and denied the motion. Plaintiff has not contested the court's treatment of the motion as one to reargue. Nor does the record indicate that plaintiff presented additional material facts when she made her motion. The motion was thus clearly one for reargument and not for renewal. Since the denial of a motion for reargument is not appealable, the instant appeal must be dismissed (see, e.g., Matter of Jones v. Marcy, 135 A.D.2d 887; Donnelly v. Donnelly, 114 A.D.2d 671, 672, appeal dismissed 67 N.Y.2d 1028; Siegel, NY Prac § 254, at 313-314).

Appeal dismissed, without costs. Casey, J.P., Weiss, Harvey and Mercure, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Vernooy v. Vernooy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 31, 1988
138 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Vernooy v. Vernooy

Case Details

Full title:JANE A. VERNOOY, Appellant, v. STEWART A. VERNOOY, JR., Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 31, 1988

Citations

138 A.D.2d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Smith

Supreme Court, inter alia, denied plaintiff the relief requested and granted defendant additional counsel…

Matter of James v. Rodriguez

In moving for reconsideration, petitioner presented no new material facts but merely alluded to facts already…