Williamson v. Shang

Decision Date21 December 1979
Citation423 N.Y.S.2d 767,73 A.D.2d 836
PartiesApplication of Sharon WILLIAMSON, Respondent, v. Carmen SHANG, as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Respondent, and Gabriel T. Russo, as Director of the Monroe County Department of Social Services, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Milo I. Tomanovich, Monroe County Dept. of Soc. Services, Rochester, by James K. Robinson, Rochester, for appellant.

Monroe County Legal Assistance Corp., Rochester, by Daniel A. Pozner, Rochester, for respondent Williamson.

Before CARDAMONE, J. P., and HANCOCK, SCHNEPP, CALLAHAN and MOULE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

We dismiss this appeal without prejudice to appellant Russo's right to renew the application for reargument. Denial of a motion for leave to reargue is not appealable (Matter of Hooker v. Town Bd. of Town of Guilderland, 60 A.D.2d 684, 399 N.Y.S.2d 935; American Bank & Trust Co. v. Lichtenstein, 48 A.D.2d 790, 369 N.Y.S.2d 155, affd. 39 N.Y.2d 857, 386 N.Y.S.2d 215, 352 N.E.2d 132; Roberts v. Connelly, 35 A.D.2d 813, 316 N.Y.S.2d 675; Matter of Bauer (MVAIC), 31 A.D.2d 239, 244, 296 N.Y.S.2d 675, 680).

Although CPLR 2221 which deals with motions for leave to reargue contains no time limitations, it is well settled that a motion to reargue may not be used by a party to extend its time to appeal and such motion must be made before the expiration of the time in which to appeal from the determination of the original motion (Matter of Huie (Furman), 20 N.Y.2d 568, 285 N.Y.S.2d 610, 232 N.E.2d 642; Liberty Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Bero Constr. Corp., 29 A.D.2d 627, 286 N.Y.S.2d 287). However, on this record there was a timely application made by a party. Since the parties before the court on the original proceeding had inseparable interests, it would not be contrary to CPLR 2221 for the court to entertain a motion to reargue.

Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Coffey v. U.S. Gypsum Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 14, 1989
    ... ... Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, defendants' motions to renew or reargue were timely made (see, Matter of Williamson v. Shang, 73 A.D.2d 836, 423 N.Y.S.2d 767; Matter of State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment v. Kerwick, 72 A.D.2d 292, 300-301, 425 N.Y.S.2d 640, ... ...
  • Cady v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1982
    ... ... Fabric Fire Hose Co., 1964, 14 N.Y.2d 633, 249 N.Y.S.2d 423, 198 N.E.2d 595; Matter of Williamson v. Shang, 1979, 73 A.D.2d 836, 423 N.Y.S.2d 767). However, here the request for clarification was made prior to the expiration of the 90-day ... ...
  • Nulman v. Hall
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 5, 1985
    ... ... Phoenix Ins. Co., 91 A.D.2d 821, 458 N.Y.S.2d 103; Matter of Williamson v. Shang, 73 A.D.2d 836, 423 N.Y.S.2d 767) ...         Appeal dismissed, with costs ... ...
  • Luming Cafe, Inc. v. Birman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 2, 1986
    ... ... However, the court was in error in concluding that the motion was untimely. As the court declared in Matter of Williamson v ... Shang, 73 A.D.2d 836, 423 N.Y.S.2d 767: "Although CPLR 2221 which deals with motions for leave to reargue contains no time limitations, it ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT