Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, upon reargument, the motion is denied, and the order dated April 29, 2002, is reinstated.
The Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff's motion, denominated as one for leave to reargue. The plaintiffs failed to establish that the court overlooked or misapprehended any relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law (see Foley v Roche,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
