From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chawla v. Cravath, Swaine Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 11, 1998
251 A.D.2d 96 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 11, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.).


So much of the order as denied reargument is nonappealable (see, Sioris v. 25 W. 43rd St. Co., 223 A.D.2d 475). Renewal was properly denied for failure to show that the alleged new facts were unavailable at the time of the original motion (see, Pahl Equip. Corp. v. Kassis, 182 A.D.2d 22, 27, lv denied and dismissed 80 N.Y.2d 1005). We would add that the alleged new facts do not in any event undermine the finding that defendant's articulated reason for terminating plaintiff is nonpretextual ( 245 A.D.2d 180).

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Nardelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

Chawla v. Cravath, Swaine Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 11, 1998
251 A.D.2d 96 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Chawla v. Cravath, Swaine Moore

Case Details

Full title:MAKHAN S. CHAWLA, Appellant, v. CRAVATH, SWAINE MOORE, Respondent

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

Date published: Jun 11, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 96 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
673 N.Y.S.2d 309

Citing Cases

Harp v. Tednick Corp.

Under these circumstances, we cannot find that the imposition of an undertaking was in error ( see, Upstate…

Alpert v. Wolf

(Beiny v Wynyard, 132 AD2d 190, lv dismissed 71 NY2d 994.)" (Id.) A motion to renew is properly denied for…