From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kats v. Agosto

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 31, 2022
203 A.D.3d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

Opinion

15637 Index No. 850027/12 Case No. 2021–02639

03-31-2022

Rudolf KATS, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Blanca N. AGOSTO, Defendant–Appellant, Green Era Construction Corp. et al., Defendants.

Binakis Law, P.C., Astoria (Paraskevas Binakis of counsel), for appellant. Christopher J. Panny, Brooklyn, for respondent.


Binakis Law, P.C., Astoria (Paraskevas Binakis of counsel), for appellant.

Christopher J. Panny, Brooklyn, for respondent.

Renwick, J.P., Gesmer, Singh, Rodriguez, JJ.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered on or about December 17, 2020, which denied defendant Blanca N. Agosto's motion for leave to renew, deemed a motion to reargue, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his foreclosure cause of action, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

Although her motion was styled a motion to renew, on appeal, defendant argues only that the motion court overlooked or misapprehended the facts and law, citing CPLR 2221(d), the rule governing motions for leave to reargue. No appeal lies from the denial of leave to reargue ( Kocak v. Dargin, 199 A.D.3d 456, 458, 158 N.Y.S.3d 13 [1st Dept. 2021] ). By failing to discuss the issue of renewal in her appellate brief, defendant has abandoned any challenge to the denial of leave to renew (see Matter of Correction Officers' Benevolent Assn. v. New York City Dept. of Corr., 157 A.D.3d 643, 643, 67 N.Y.S.3d 639 [1st Dept. 2018] ).

This appeal is further barred by defendant's failure to perfect her appeal from the prior order, which resulted in the deemed dismissal of that appeal for failure to prosecute ( Pier 59 Studios, L.P. v. Chelsea Piers, L.P., 40 A.D.3d 363, 366, 836 N.Y.S.2d 68 [1st Dept. 2007] ; Grogan v. Gamber Corp., 78 A.D.3d 571, 911 N.Y.S.2d 352 [1st Dept. 2010] ; see 22 NYCRR 1250.10 [a]).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Kats v. Agosto

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 31, 2022
203 A.D.3d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
Case details for

Kats v. Agosto

Case Details

Full title:Rudolf KATS, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Blanca N. AGOSTO…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 31, 2022

Citations

203 A.D.3d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
203 A.D.3d 661

Citing Cases

People v. Trump

When making a motion to reargue, the moving party must show that the deciding court overlooked or…

Montes v. 660 Park Ave. Corp.

A motion for reargument allows a party to demonstrate that the court overlooked or misapprehended the law or…