From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seltzer v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 5, 2001
288 A.D.2d 207 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued October 10, 2001.

November 5, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated July 11, 2000, which denied her motion, in effect, for leave to reargue a prior order of the same court, dated September 29, 1999, which, inter alia, granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Renfroe Quinn, Forest Hills, N.Y. (John E. Quinn of counsel), for appellant.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Grace Goodman of counsel), for respondent City of New York.

Bee, Eisman Ready, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Joshua M. Jemal and Michael B. Janes of counsel), for respondents A.A.G. Pizzeria Corp. and Mario's Coffee Shop.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff's motion was improperly designated as one for leave to renew and reargue. Since the evidence upon which renewal was sought was available to the plaintiff at the time when she submitted her opposition to the original motions for summary judgment, it did not constitute a proper ground for renewal. Thus, the motion was for leave to reargue (see, CPLR 2221; Santana v. Sterling, 278 A.D.2d 219; Kirkpatrick v. State Farm Fire Cas. Co., 255 A.D.2d 363), the denial of which is not appealable (see, Haggerty v. Agawam Realty, 271 A.D.2d 408).

We further note that by decision and order of this court dated September 15, 2000, the plaintiff's appeal from the order dated September 29, 1999, was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The dismissal constituted an adjudication on the merits with respect to all issues which could have been reviewed therein, thus precluding review at this time (see, Rubeo v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 N.Y.2d 750; Bray v. Cox, 38 N.Y.2d 350; Gammal v. La Casita Milta, 278 A.D.2d 364; Matter of Keenan v. Albert, 273 A.D.2d 388).

RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, FEUERSTEIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Seltzer v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 5, 2001
288 A.D.2d 207 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Seltzer v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:DORIS SELTZER, APPELLANT, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., RESPONDENTS

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

Date published: Nov 5, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 207 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
732 N.Y.S.2d 364

Citing Cases

Zucker v. N.Y. State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal

A motion to renew is based upon new facts not presented on the prior application that would change the prior…

Matter of Seaman v. Farrell Fritz, P.C.

A motion to renew is based upon new facts not presented on the prior application that would change the prior…