Rodney v. New York Pyrotechnic Products Co., Inc.
| Citation | 112 A.D.2d 410,492 N.Y.S.2d 69 |
| Parties | Ronald F. RODNEY, et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK PYROTECHNIC PRODUCTS, CO., INC., Defendant-third-party-Plaintiff; Town of Brookhaven, Appellant. New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation, nonparty Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 29 July 1985 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Curtis, Zaklukiewicz, Vasile & Devine, Merric (David Holmes, Merric, of counsel), for appellant.
Dean, Falanga & Rose, Carle Place (Fred N. Perry, Carle Place, of counsel), for respondents.
Raymond Green, New York City (Mark Slotkin, New York City, of counsel), for nonparty appellant New York State Environmental Facilities Corp.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and THOMPSON, O'CONNOR and WEINSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., (1) the third-party defendant Town of Brookhaven appeals (a) from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 9, 1984, which granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to reargue the town's application pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute, and, upon reargument, vacated a prior order of the same court dated September 13, 1983 dismissing the action and, inter alia, directed plaintiffs to place the matter on the trial calendar, and (b) from an order of the same court, dated March 14, 1984, which denied its motion for "an order resettling" the order of January 9, 1984, and (2) New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (NYSEFC) appeals from so much of the order dated January 9, 1984 as referred to a purported fourth-party claim against it.
Order dated January 9, 1984 modified, on the law, by deleting all reference to the purported fourth-party claim. As so modified, order affirmed.
Order dated March 14, 1984 affirmed.
Respondents are awarded one bill of costs payable by the Town of Brookhaven.
Motions for reargument are addressed to the sound discretion of the Judge who decided the prior motion and may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision (Delcrete Corp. v. Kling, 67 A.D.2d 1099, 415 N.Y.S.2d 148). Under the circumstances, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to reargue. In view of the meritorious nature of their claim, the clear absence of an intent to abandon the action, the lack of substantial prejudice to appellant as a result of the delay...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Melendez v. Kirkpatrick
......United States District Court, W.D. New York. Oct. 8, 2010. . [742 ... liability where the evidence showed that the co-defendant had “plotted his revenge for months ... arrived at its earlier decision[.]” Rodney v. New York Pyrotechnic Products, Co., Inc., 112 ......
-
Rubin v. Dondysh
...the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied controlling principles of law (Rodney v. New York Pyrotechnic Products Co., Inc., 112 A.D.2d 410, 492 N.Y.S.2d 69). It does not serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party an opportunity to argue again the very ......
-
Correa v. Maimonides Medical Center
...The court notes that a motion for reargument is addressed to the sound discretion of the court (Rodney v. New York Pyrotechnic Prods. Co., 112 A.D.2d 410, 411, 492 N.Y.S.2d 69). Defendant's contention that CPLR 5015(a) limits the grounds upon which a judgment may be vacated and that this co......
-
ARK61 v. Archdiocese of N.Y.
...controlling principles of law (see, Schneider v. Solowey, 141 A.D.2d 813 [2d Dept 1988]; Rodney v. New York Pyrotechnic Products, Inc., 112 A.D.2d 410 [2d Dept 1985]). A "motion to reargue is not an opportunity to present new facts or arguments not previously offered, nor it is designed for......