Court Opinion

ID: 9942222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 18:08:06.125209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:54.433325
License: Public Domain

Matter of Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP v AVRA Surgical Robotics, Inc. (2024 NY Slip Op 00878)

Matter of Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP v AVRA Surgical Robotics, Inc.

2024 NY Slip Op 00878

Decided on February 20, 2024

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: February 20, 2024

Before: Webber, J.P., Gesmer, González, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ. 

Index No. 153447/20 Appeal No. 1715 Case No. 2023-02961 

[*1]In the Matter of Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Petitioner-Respondent,
vAVRA Surgical Robotics, Inc., et al., Respondents, Jared B. Stamell, Respondent-Appellant.

Levy Goldenberg LLP, New York (Andrew R. Goldenberg of counsel), for appellant.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York (Todd Anten of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), entered on or about November 21, 2022, which denied respondent Jared B. Stamell's motion for resettlement and clarification of a prior order of the court entered in November 2020, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.
Respondent styled his motion as a "Motion for Resettlement and Clarification of Decision and Order." He does not contest that "no appeal lies from an order denying resettlement or clarification of an order" (Makhnevich v Board of Mgrs. of 2900 Ocean Condominium, 217 AD3d 630, 632 [1st Dept 2023], appeal dismissed 40 NY3d 1015 [2023]).
To the extent the order appealed from was the result of a motion for reargument challenging the November 2020 order's alter ego findings, it is also not reviewable. It is well settled that "[n]o appeal lies from denial of a motion for reargument" (Matter of Penick, 212 AD3d 567, 568 [1st Dept 2023]). The motion court plainly denied respondent's motion for reargument. Thus, the order is not appealable.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: February 20, 2024