From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jelicks v. Camacho

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 28, 2002
290 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-04593, 2001-06737

Submitted January 9, 2002.

January 28, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), dated March 27, 2001, as, upon reargument and renewal of a prior order of the same court dated October 12, 2000, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), adhered to the prior determination, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated July 5, 2001, which denied their motion for reargument.

DiJoseph Portegello, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Arnold E. DiJoseph III of counsel), for appellants.

Ronald I. Lemberger, Hempstead, N.Y. (Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker Sauer [Jonathan A. Dachs] of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, A. GAIL PRUDENTI, JJ.


ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed, with costs.

It is well settled that a litigant may not raise any issue on a subsequent appeal that was raised, or could have been raised, on an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution (see, Bray v. Cox, 38 N.Y.2d 350). Here, the plaintiffs appealed from a prior order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated October 12, 2000, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). That appeal (Appellate Division Docket No. 2000-10238) was dismissed by decision and order of this court dated May 30, 2001, for failure to prosecute. The dismissal for lack of prosecution bars the instant appeal which raises issues which could have been raised on the prior appeal (see, Rubeo v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 N.Y.2d 750; Bray v. Cox, supra).

Moreover, the appeal from the order dated July 5, 2001, must be dismissed as no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for reargument (see, Weissberger v. Ashikari, 278 A.D.2d 409).

FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN, ADAMS and PRUDENTI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Jelicks v. Camacho

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 28, 2002
290 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Jelicks v. Camacho

Case Details

Full title:GARY JELICKS, ET AL., appellants, v. SHAKIRA CAMACHO, respondent

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

Date published: Jan 28, 2002

Citations

290 A.D.2d 535 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
736 N.Y.S.2d 631

Citing Cases

Paniccia v. Long Island Rail Road Company

ORDERED that the judgment in Action No. 2 is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted to…

In the Matter of Johnson v. Baker

ORDERED that the order dated October 15, 2001, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. As a general…