Summary
In Rodriguez v Aled Transp. Co. (147 A.D.2d 625), it appears that a motion to vacate an order denying the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the trial calendar had been properly addressed to the Justice who made the order, who then referred it to another Justice.
Summary of this case from Carpenter v. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.Opinion
February 21, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J., Williams, J.).
Ordered that the plaintiffs' cross appeal is dismissed as academic; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.
By order dated April 24, 1987, the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), denied the plaintiffs' motion to restore their action to the Trial Calendar. By notice of motion dated June 18, 1987, the plaintiffs, inter alia, moved for renewal and reargument. The plaintiffs properly complied with CPLR 2221 (a) by addressing their motion to Judge Williams.
While that motion was disposed of by Judge Hurowitz, under the circumstances, it does not appear that such was error (see, CPLR 2221 [a]; Dalrymple v King Community Health Center, 127 A.D.2d 69). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.