Court Opinion

ID: 9930883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 20:09:11.293739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:51:35.315389
License: Public Domain

Coalition of Landlords v S. & A. Neocronon, Inc. (2024 NY Slip Op 00613)

Coalition of Landlords v S. & A. Neocronon, Inc.

2024 NY Slip Op 00613

Decided on February 7, 2024

Appellate Division, Second 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 on February 7, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
HELEN VOUTSINAS
CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ.

2021-03312
 (Index No. 612748/19)

[*1]Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc., et al., appellants, 
vS. & A. Neocronon, Inc., etc., et al., respondents.

Judith N. Berger, Lindenhurst, NY, for appellants.
Gerard Glass & Associates, P.C., Babylon, NY, for respondents.

DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Martha L. Luft, J.), dated January 8, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from, in effect, denied those branches of the plaintiffs' motion which were for leave to renew and reargue their opposition to that branch of the defendants' cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint, which had been granted in an order of the same court dated May 12, 2020.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The appeal from so much of the order as, in effect, denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to reargue their opposition to that branch of the defendants' cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Carlin, 186 AD3d 1563). Moreover, in light of our determination on a related appeal regarding that branch of the defendants' cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint (see Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. v S. & A. Neocronon, Inc., _____ AD3d _____ [Appellate Division Docket No. 2020-05604; decided herewith]), the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to renew their opposition to that branch of the cross-motion must be dismissed because it has been rendered academic.
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, VOUTSINAS and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Acting Clerk of the Court