Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

144 Stuyvesant, LLC v. Robin Newborn

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM: 2nd, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


January 24, 2012

144 STUYVESANT, LLC,
RESPONDENT,
v.
ROBIN NEWBORN, RESPONDENT.
BARBARA GONCALVES,
NONPARTY-APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Gary F. Marton, J.), dated May 13, 2010.

144 Stuyvesant, LLC v Newborn

Decided on January 24, 2012

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

PRESENT: WESTON, J.P., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ

The order denied a motion by nonparty-appellant Barbara Goncalves for, in effect, leave to reargue and renew her prior motion for post-eviction relief.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as denied the branch of nonparty-appellant's motion seeking, in effect, leave to reargue her prior motion is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that so much of the order as denied the branch of nonparty-appellant's motion seeking, in effect, leave to renew is affirmed, without costs.

The appeal from so much of the order as denied the branch of nonparty- appellant Barbara Goncalves's motion seeking, in effect, leave to reargue her prior motion for post-eviction relief must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for leave to reargue (see Bermudez v City of New York, 66 AD3d 724 [2009]; Malik v Campbell, 289 AD2d 540 [2001]). In support of the branch of her motion seeking leave to renew the prior motion, Goncalves needed to proffer either new facts which were unavailable at the time of the prior motion or a reasonable justification for the failure to have presented such facts on the prior motion (CPLR 2221 [e]; see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Matheson, 77 AD3d 883 [2010]). Goncalves failed to do either. Under these circumstances, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the branch of Goncalves's motion seeking, in effect, leave to renew her prior motion.

Weston, J.P., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: January 24, 2012

20120124

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.