1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.3d
  4. 85 A.D.3d
  5. 85 A.D.3d 635 (2011)
 

HOFFELD v. LINDHOLM

5417, 650613/09.

85 A.D.3d 635 (2011)

925 N.Y.S.2d 819

2011 NY Slip Op 5424

JEFFREY HOFFELD et al., Appellants, v. KERSTIN LINDHOLM, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

Decided June 23, 2011.

We conclude that despite plaintiffs' denomination in their notice of motion, the motion at issue was one for reargument (see Fontanez v St. Barnabas Hosp., 24 A.D.3d 218 [2005]). The denial of a motion for reargument is not appealable (Rosen v Rosenholc, 303 A.D.2d 230 [2003]).

Were we to consider the merits of plaintiffs' underlying motion, we would find that plaintiffs have violated...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases