Matter of Social Serv. Empls. Union, Local 371 v New York City Bd. of Correction

Matter of Matter of Social Serv. Empls. Union, Local 371 v New York City Bd. of Correction 2012 NY Slip Op 01736 Decided on March 8, 2012 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 on March 8, 2012
Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, DeGrasse, Richter, JJ.
7021 100208/10

[*1]In re Social Service Employees Union, Local 371 on behalf of its member, Sherrie Brown, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

New York City Board of Correction, Respondent-Respondent.




Kreisberg & Maitland, LLP, New York (Jeffrey L. Kreisberg
of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Suzanne
K. Colt of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered October 19, 2010, which denied petitioner's motion for leave to reargue respondent's cross petition to vacate an interim arbitration award and disqualify the arbitrator, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.

The challenged order could not be interpreted as effectively granting reargument and, upon reargument, adhering to the original determination so as to render it an appealable order. Indeed, the court not only unequivocally "denied" the motion for reargument, but expressly ruled that it did not overlook or misapprehend any facts or law when determining the prior motion (see William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 [1992], lv denied in part, dismissed in part 80 NY2d 1005 [1992]); nor did it adhere to its prior determination on a different ground (compare Judlau Contr., Inc. v Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 46 AD3d 482, 483 [2007]). Accordingly, the order denying the motion to reargue is nonappealable (Cillo v Resjefal Corp., 300 AD2d 146 [2002]). In any event, even if the challenged order could be considered a grant of reargument, we would find that the court properly adhered to its original determination.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 8, 2012

CLERK