Opinion
1040 CA 18–00334
10-05-2018
SOUTH TOWNS SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, P.C., Daniel J. Patterson, D.O., F.A.C.O.S., and Kenneth H. Eckhert, III, M.D., F.A.C.S., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Jeffrey P. STEINIG, M.D., F.A.C.S., Defendant–Appellant.
LAW OFFICE OF RALPH C. LORIGO, WEST SENECA (FRANK J. JACOBSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. HURWITZ & FINE, P.C., BUFFALO (AMBER E. STORR OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS–RESPONDENTS.
LAW OFFICE OF RALPH C. LORIGO, WEST SENECA (FRANK J. JACOBSON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
HURWITZ & FINE, P.C., BUFFALO (AMBER E. STORR OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS–RESPONDENTS.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: On appeal from an order that, inter alia, granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to reargue their opposition to defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and, upon reargument, denied defendant's motion in its entirety, we reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in granting the motion for leave to reargue. The court properly granted leave to reargue on the ground that it misapprehended the facts and law in determining defendant's motion for partial summary judgment (see Smith v. City of Buffalo, 122 A.D.3d 1419, 1420, 997 N.Y.S.2d 563 [4th Dept. 2014] ; Luppino v. Mosey, 103 A.D.3d 1117, 1118, 958 N.Y.S.2d 823 [4th Dept. 2013] ; see generally CPLR 2221[d][2] ). With respect to the merits of defendant's motion, we affirm the order for reasons stated in the court's decision.