Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982

Galaxy Export, Inc. v. Bedford Textile Products, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided July 12, 1982

89 A.D.2d 576; 452 N.Y.S.2d 233; 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17641

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Nassar v. Bistany (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Gildston v. Schechter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Empire Insurance v. Food City, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Flaherty v. Elber Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Syracuse Bros. v. Darcy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Muollo v. Crestwood Village, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
McFadden v. Long Island Railroad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wernick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yoswein, J.), dated January 18, 1982, which denied its application to “renew” a prior motion to dismiss the third cause of action in the complaint. Appeal dismissed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendant’s motion to “renew” was, in reality, a motion to reargue, as no new matter was presented which was unavailable to defendant prior to denial of its prior motion and affirmance thereof by this court upon appeal (see Erlich v Erlich, 80 AD2d 882; Galaxy Export v Bedford Textile Prods., 84 AD2d 572). An order denying a motion for leave to reargue is not appealable. In any event^ we note that we have already considered and rejected the substantive arguments raised by defendant on this appeal (see Galaxy Export v Bedford Textile Prods., supra). O’Connor, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.