John McCormack v Universal Carpet & Upholstery Cleaners, Inc.

Annotate this Case
McCormack v Universal Carpet & Upholstery Cleaners, Inc. 2006 NY Slip Op 03554 [29 AD3d 541] May 2, 2006 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, July 19, 2006

John McCormack et al., Respondents,
v
Universal Carpet & Upholstery Cleaners, Inc., et al., Respondent-Appellant, and VF Properties, LLC, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Respondent-Appellant. Montauk Rug & Carpet, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Respondent.

—[*1]In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated January 6, 2004, as denied, in effect with leave to renew, its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and an order of the same court dated March 30, 2004, as denied its motion, denominated as one for leave to reargue and renew, but which was, in actuality, for leave to reargue its prior cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, and the defendant Universal Carpet & Upholstery Cleaners and the defendant third-party plaintiff separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the order dated March 30, 2004 as denied their cross motion, denominated as one for leave to reargue and renew, but which was, in actuality, for leave to reargue their prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal by the third-party defendant from the order dated January 6, 2004, has [*2]been rendered academic (see McCormack v Universal Carpet & Upholstery Cleaners, 29 AD3d 542 [2006]).

The appeals from the order dated March 30, 2004, must be dismissed because no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see North Fork Bank v Sawicki, 23 AD3d 632 [2005]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano 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.