Opinion
02-20-2024
In the Matter of QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, Petitioner-Respondent, v. AVRA SURGICAL ROBOTICS, INC., et al., Respondents, Jared B. Stamell, Respondent–Appellant.
Levy Goldenberg LLP, New York (Andrew R. Goldenberg of counsel), for appellant. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York (Todd Anten of counsel), for respondent.
Levy Goldenberg LLP, New York (Andrew R. Goldenberg of counsel), for appellant.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York (Todd Anten of counsel), for respondent.
Webber, J.P., Gesmer, González, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), entered on or about November 21, 2022, which denied respondent Jared B. Stamell’s motion for resettlement and clarification of a prior order of the court entered in November 2020, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.
Respondent styled his motion as a "Motion for Resettlement and Clarification of Decision and Order." He does not contest that "no appeal lies from an order denying resettlement or clarification of an order" (Makhnevich v. Board of Mgrs. of 2900 Ocean Condominium, 217 A.D.3d 630, 632, 193 N.Y.S.3d 9 [1st Dept. 2023], appeal dismissed 40 N.Y.3d 1015, 199 N.Y.S.3d 448, 222 N.E.3d 1112 [2023]).
To the extent the order appealed from was the result of a motion for reargument challenging the November 2020 order’s alter ego findings, it is also not reviewable. It is well settled that "[n]o appeal lies from denial of a motion for reargument" (Matter of Penick, 212 A.D.3d 567, 568, 180 N.Y.S.3d 899 [1st Dept. 2023]). The motion court plainly denied respondent’s motion for reargument. Thus, the order is not appealable.