Legal Opinion
Diviak v. Schulefand
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided May 27, 1988No. Appeal No. 1PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*951Since plaintiff’s initial opposition to defendant Schulefand’s motion was sufficient, we need not decide the issues raised in defendants’ second appeal from an order which granted plaintiffs’ motion to renew and adhered to its original decision. We must note, however, that we do not sanction a procedure in which a prevailing party is permitted to renew a motion upon which it has already prevailed, particularly where, as here, the motion to renew was made after defendants filed their notice of appeal from the original order denying their motion for summary judgment. Although Special Term…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hill v. St. Clare's HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Connell v. HaydenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Kavanaugh v. NussbaumNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
- Lanza v. Parkeast HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
3Cited by6 opinions
- District of Columbia v. AndersonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- Fridovich v. DavidAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Matthews v. New York City Housing AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Long v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Serino v. Miller Brewing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.