Legal Opinion
DiCienzo v. Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 5, 2009No. Appeal No. 1PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered June 23, 2008. The order denied the motion of The Niagara Venture for leave to reargue or renew the denial of its motion to intervene.
It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: The Niagara Venture (NV) appeals from three orders denying its motions for “reargument and renewal” of *1664prior motions seeking to intervene in action No. 1 and to consolidate action Nos. 1 and 2. We conclude that Supreme Court properly deemed the current motions only as motions…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Empire Insurance v. Food City, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Welch Foods, Inc. v. WilsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Khan v. LevyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Salgado v. RingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Hale v. Wilmorite, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lahey v. LaheyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Lewis v. City of RochesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- DiCienzo v. Niagara Falls Urban Renewal AgencyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Niagara Venture v. Niagara Falls Urban Renewal AgencyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009