Nicoletti v. City of N.Y.
Decision Date | 12 October 2010 |
Citation | 909 N.Y.S.2d 117,77 A.D.3d 715 |
Parties | Antonio NICOLETTI, et al., plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, respondent, 42-24 235 St., LLC, appellant, et al., defendant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
O'Connor Redd, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Amy L. Fenno and J. McGarry Costello of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondent.
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, ARIEL E. BELEN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant 42-24 235 St., LLC, appeals (1), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Kerrigan, J.), dated July 27, 2009, as granted the motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and (2) from an order of the same court dated October 22, 2009, which denied its motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, but which was, in actuality, one for leave to reargue.
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.
The appeal from the order dated October 22, 2009, must be dismissed. The motion by the defendant 42-24 235 St., LLC (hereinafter the appellant), denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue its opposition to the prior motion of the defendant City of New York for summary judgment, was, in actuality, one for leave to reargue, because it was not based on new facts ( see CPLR 2221[d][2] ). An order denying a motion for leave to reargueis not appealable ( see Weiss v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 63 A.D.3d 1045, 1047, 882 N.Y.S.2d 229; Somma v. Richardt, 52 A.D.3d 813, 861 N.Y.S.2d 720; Cordero v. Mirecle Cab Corp., 51 A.D.3d 707, 858 N.Y.S.2d 717).
The injured plaintiff and his wife, suing derivatively, commenced the instant action to recover damages for personal injuries against the City, the appellant, and Heitz Landscape, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that on February 21, 2007, the injured plaintiff sustained injuries when he slipped and fell on snow and ice covering a sidewalk located at 42-24 235th Street in Queens, which is owned by the appellant. Subsequently, the City moved for summary judgment on the ground, inter alia, that it was not liable as a matter of law pursuant to section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. The Supreme Court granted the City's motion.
In support of that branch of its motion which was for summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doviak v. Finkelstein & Partners, LLP
...no appeal lies from an order denying reargument ( see Schiano v. Mijul, Inc., 79 A.D.3d 726, 912 N.Y.S.2d 134; Nicoletti v. City of New York, 77 A.D.3d 715, 716, 909 N.Y.S.2d 117; Weiss v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 63 A.D.3d 1045, 1047, 882 N.Y.S.2d 229). In its order entered August 13, 2010,......
- People v. Alston
-
N.Y. Tel. Co. v. Supervisor of Town of Hempstead
...no appeal lies from an order denying reargument ( see Schiano v. Mijul, Inc., 79 A.D.3d 726, 912 N.Y.S.2d 134;Nicoletti v. City of New York, 77 A.D.3d 715, 716, 909 N.Y.S.2d 117;Weiss v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 63 A.D.3d 1045, 1047, 882 N.Y.S.2d 229); and it is further, ORDERED that the fiv......
-
Dupree v. Tower 157, LLC
...the City has sufficiently demonstrated, prima facie, that it may not be held liable for plaintiff's injuries (see Nicoletti v. City of New York, 77 A.D.3d 715 [2d Dept. 2010]; Gordy v. City of New York, 67 A.D.3d 523 [1st Dept. 2009]; Rodriguez v. City of New York, 70 A.D.3d 450 [1st Dept. ......