Willig v. Danzig, Fishman & Decea

1 Citing case

  1. Cloke v. Findlan

    165 A.D.3d 1545 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 11 times

    Initially, we reject plaintiff's contention that defendant's arguments pertaining to the April 2017 order are not properly before us (seeGMMM Westover LLC v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 155 A.D.3d 1176, 1178 n. 5, 63 N.Y.S.3d 754 [2017] ). Further, while the denial of a reargument motion is not appealable as of right (seeRodriguez v. Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, 126 A.D.3d 1183, 1184, 3 N.Y.S.3d 793 [2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 912, 2015 WL 3952245 [2015] ), because Supreme Court addressed and rejected the merits of defendant's claim, we "deem the court to have granted reargument and adhered to its prior decision" on defendant's summary judgment motion ( id. ; seeWillig v. Danzig, Fishman & Decea, 163 A.D.3d 1304, 1305, 82 N.Y.S.3d 640 [2018] ; Besicorp Group v. Enowitz, 268 A.D.2d 846, 847–848, 702 N.Y.S.2d 421 [2000] ). Thus, the propriety of both orders is reviewable upon this appeal.