Savory v. Romex Realty Corp.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1993 |
| Citation | 194 A.D.2d 601,599 N.Y.S.2d 997 |
| Parties | Beverly A. SAVORY, Appellant, v. ROMEX REALTY CORPORATION, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Shapiro & Yankowitz, P.C. (Seligson, Rothman & Rothman, New York City [Martin S. Rothman, Jack A. Yankowitz, and Alyne I. Diamond], of counsel), for appellant. Goldblum & DiCicco, Brooklyn (Robert Markewich, of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), entered January 29, 1991, which denied her motion, inter alia, to amend the complaint by increasing the ad damnum clause, and (2) an order of the same court entered April 23, 1991, which denied her motion which purportedly was for renewal and reargument. ORDERED that the appeal from the order entered April 23, 1991, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further, ORDERED that the order entered January 29, 1991 is affirmed; and it is further, ORDERED that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs. The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, to amend the complaint by increasing the ad damnum clause. The plaintiff failed to submit a medical affidavit or affirmation specifying a change in her condition, any injuries which had not been considered previously, or the extent to which the condition had worsened (see, Dolan v. Garden City Union Free School Dist., 113 A.D.2d 781, 785, 493 N.Y.S.2d 217). Because the plaintiff's purported motion to renew and reargue was not based on any additional material facts, it is properly deemed one to reargue. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568, 418 N.Y.S.2d 588).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunham v. Hilco Const. Co., Inc.
...N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82 (see, e.g., Matter of Huie [Furman], 20 N.Y.2d 568, 285 N.Y.S.2d 610, 232 N.E.2d 642; Savory v. Romex Realty Corp., 194 A.D.2d 601, 599 N.Y.S.2d 997). Ordinarily no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, Savory v. Romex Realty Corp., supra). However, w......
-
Safina v. Queens Long Island Medical Group, P.C.
...228 A.D.2d 653, 646 N.Y.S.2d 15; see, e.g., Matter of Huie, 20 N.Y.2d 568, 285 N.Y.S.2d 610, 232 N.E.2d 642; Savory v. Romex Realty Corp., 194 A.D.2d 601, 599 N.Y.S.2d 997). We further conclude that the order appealed from simply denied the motion to reargue as opposed to granting reargumen......
-
S.R. Leon Co., Inc. v. Towers
... ... the contract because of oral misrepresentations (see, Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris, 5 N.Y.2d 317, 322, 184 N.Y.S.2d 599, 157 N.E.2d 597; ... ...
-
Shany v. 99-60/64th Street LLC, 2008 NY Slip Op 30828(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 3/5/2008)
...worsened. See, Cohen v. Kim, supra; Joefield v. New York City Tr. Auth., 11 A.D.3d 586, 587 (2nd Dept. 2004); Savory v. Romex Realty Corp., 194 A.D.2d 601, 602 (2nd Dept. 1993). Plaintiff alleges that, without the assistance of counsel, he filed a summons and endorsed complaint in the Civil......