Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015

Matter of New S. Ins. Co. v. Rosado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 18, 2015 · No. 2014-04911 · Austin, Hall, Leventhal, Sgroi

125 A.D.3d 867; 1 N.Y.S.3d 836

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Moody v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
Unkechaug Indian Nation v. Treadwell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Halvatzis v. Perrone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Brennan v. Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Feinman v. County of Nassau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Humsted v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Matter of Richardson v. Thompson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)

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

In a proceeding, inter alia, to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, Ashley Rosado and Carmelo Rosado appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Raffaele, J.), entered April 22, 2014, as denied their motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, but which was, in actuality, one for leave to reargue their opposition to the petition, inter alia, to permanently stay the arbitration, which had been granted in a prior order entered March 3, 2014.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered April 22, 2014, is dismissed, with costs.

The appellants’ motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, did not offer any new facts not previously offered in support of their opposition to the petition, inter alia, to permanently stay arbitration. Since this motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, was, in actuality, solely one for leave to reargue, the appeal must be dismissed, as the denial of reargument is not appealable (see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]; [e] [2]; Vigo v 501 Second St. Holding Corp., 100 AD3d 872, 872-873 [2012]; Walter v Castrataro, 94 AD3d 872, 873 [2012]; Gelobter v Fox, 90 AD3d 829, 830 [2011]).

Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.