John Herzog v Theresa Herzog

Annotate this Case
Herzog v Herzog 2006 NY Slip Op 03051 [28 AD3d 716] April 25, 2006 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, June 21, 2006

John Herzog, Appellant,
v
Theresa Herzog, Respondent.

—[*1]In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, J.), dated June 8, 2005, which denied his motion, in effect, for leave to reargue a prior motion to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Although the Supreme Court treated the plaintiff's motion as one for leave to renew, the motion was not based on new facts which were unavailable at the time of the original motion. Therefore, the motion was, in effect, one for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see Absolute Fin. Servs. v 535 Broadhollow Realty, 292 AD2d 327 [2002]; Duffy v Wetzler, 260 AD2d 596, 597 [1999]; SantaMaria v Schwartz, 238 AD2d 569 [1997]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.