SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts
March 29, 2013
CITY DENTAL SERVICES, P.C. AS ASSIGNEE OF AURORA ARIAS, LEAH HARRISON, MARIO MERA, ERLINDA RODRIGUEZ, GLADIS RODRIGUEZ AND IMRAN SHAW, RESPONDENT, --
COUNTRY WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Johnny Lee Baynes, J.), entered April 27, 2011.
City Dental Servs., P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co.
Decided on March 29, 2013
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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: RIOS, J.P., PESCE and ALIOTTA, JJ
The order denied the branches of defendant's motion seeking leave to renew and reargue defendant's opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as denied the branch of defendant's motion seeking leave to reargue its opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is dismissed as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order, insofar as reviewed, is affirmed, without costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. When defendant attempted to file opposing papers almost two months after their stipulated due date, the Civil Court (Carolyn E. Wade, J.) rejected defendant's papers and, by order entered June 11, 2010, granted plaintiff's motion on default. Thereafter, defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d) and (e), for leave to "renew and reargue" its opposition to plaintiff's prior motion for summary judgment and, upon renewal and reargument, to deny plaintiff's motion. Defendant's motion also sought to vacate the June 11, 2010 order pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1). By order entered April 27, 2011, the Civil Court (Johnny Lee Baynes, J.) denied the branches of defendant's motion seeking leave to renew and reargue. The order did not address the branch of defendant's motion seeking to vacate the June 11, 2010 order.
The appeal from so much of the order as denied the branch of defendant's motion seeking leave to "reargue" must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see Barrafato v Franzitta, 308 AD2d 468 ).
The denial of the branch of defendant's motion seeking leave to "renew" its "opposition" to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was proper since defendant had defaulted in opposing plaintiff's motion and, thus, defendant's remedy was to seek to vacate the default order. Finally, the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), to vacate the June 11, 2010 order was not addressed in the order appealed from and, therefore, remains pending and undecided (see Creese v Long Is. Light. Co., 98 AD3d 708, 711 ; Katz v Katz, 68 AD2d 536 ).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as reviewed, is affirmed. Rios, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur. Decision Date: March 29, 2013
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.