From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fitzpatrick v. Cook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 27, 1977
58 A.D.2d 642 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Opinion

June 27, 1977


Appeal, as limited by appellants' brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered February 14, 1977, as, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination which denied appellants' motion to remove Action No. 2 from the Supreme Court, New York County to the Supreme Court, Orange County and for the consolidation of the actions. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements payable to plaintiff-respondent in Action No. 2 by appellants. Special Term, in denying the initial motion, properly noted that the two actions present different questions of law and fact. The motion to reargue was untimely, for such motion "should be made no later than the time limited for taking an appeal from the order; otherwise the prohibition against extending the time to take an appeal could be circumvented" (2A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac, par 2221.03, citing, inter alia, Liberty Nat. Bank Trust Co. v Bero Constr. Corp., 29 A.D.2d 627). As to the merits, appellants' belated contentions regarding convenience of witnesses and which action was first commenced do not prevail over the fact of the disparate nature of the actions and the circumstance that Action No. 2 was reached for trial in New York County prior to the motion herein and is actually ready for trial. Latham, J.P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fitzpatrick v. Cook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 27, 1977
58 A.D.2d 642 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)
Case details for

Fitzpatrick v. Cook

Case Details

Full title:JOAN FITZPATRICK, as Executrix, Respondent, v. FRED A. COOK et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 27, 1977

Citations

58 A.D.2d 642 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Citing Cases

Wadler v. the City of New York

III. Plaintiff's motion to renew and reargue should have been granted. ( People v Russo, 128 Misc 2d 876; Pro…

Spence-Chapin v. Tedeno

Petitioner does not seek reargument, but even if the motion herein were to be so considered, it would be…