1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.3d
  4. 100 A.D.3d
  5. 100 A.D.3d 481 (2012)
 

PROFITA v. DIAZ

8564, 307465/08.

100 A.D.3d 481 (2012)

954 N.Y.S.2d 40

TARAMARIE PROFITA et al, Respondents, v. JUAN DIAZ et al., Respondents, and BENJAMIN O. JONES et al., Appellants.

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

November 13, 2012.

The court properly considered plaintiffs' motion to reargue, even though it was untimely under CPLR 2221 (d) (3). "[R]egardless of statutory time limits concerning motions to reargue, every court retains continuing jurisdiction to reconsider its prior interlocutory orders during the pendency of the action" (Liss v Trans Auto Sys., 68 N.Y.2d 15, 20 [1986]; see also Kleinser v Astarita, 61 A.D.3d 597

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