Legal Opinion

Suffolk & Nassau Amusement Co. v. Wurlitzer Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 22, 1965PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

In an action to recover damages for fraud and deceit *894etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 30, 1965, which denied plaintiff’s “ motion for leave to reargue ” defendant’s motion to vacate the service of the summons, previously decided in defendant’s favor (see 22 A D 2d 1018). Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the plaintiff’s motion, denominated as a " motion for leave to reargue ” was, in fact, a motion for leave to renew, the denial of which is appealable (Drinkwater v. Grady, 285 App. Div. 1176). It is…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Drinkwater v. GradyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Sample v. LevadaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  2. Amodeo v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
  3. Kaufman v. KunisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
  4. Kraeling v. Leading Edge ElectricAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
  5. Amodeo v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API