Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

McNamara v. Rockland County Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 10, 2003

302 A.D.2d 435; 754 N.Y.S.2d 900; 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1358

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

American Tr. Ins. Co. v. Supportive Prods., Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2025)
Matter of Odunbaku v. Odunbaku (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Khoury v. Khoury (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Mattie M. v. Administration for Children's Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Rivera v. Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Anatian (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
McNeil v. Dixon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Calo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)

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, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a retainer agreement, the plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (O’Rourke, J.), dated November 16, 2001, as, in effect, upon granting reargument, adhered to its prior determination in an order dated August 3, 2001, granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated August 3, 2001.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated August 3, 2001, is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated November 16, 2001, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff’s motion, denominated as one for renewal and *436reargument, was not based upon new evidence that was unavailable at the time of the original motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Cong. Bais Rabbenu v 26 Adar N.B. Corp., 282 AD2d 642). Therefore, the motion was actually one for reargument (see McCorvey v Schoulder, 273 AD2d 207). As the Supreme Court reviewed the merits of the plaintiffs arguments, the court, in effect, granted re argument and adhered to its original determination. Therefore, the order made upon reargument is appealable (see Garieri v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 275 AD2d 730).

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the court misapprehended any of the relevant facts that were before it or misapplied any controlling principle of law (see Pro Brokerage v Home Ins. Co., 99 AD2d 971). Therefore, the court properly adhered to its prior determination granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff clearly disobeyed the court’s conditional order, and, by her willful conduct, frustrated disclosure (see Cronin v Perry, 269 AD2d 351; Arcuri & Sons v Alfonsi, 242 AD2d 313). Florio, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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