Ramirez v ELWOL Realty

[*1] Ramirez v ELWOL Realty 2014 NY Slip Op 51770(U) Decided on December 17, 2014 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 17, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570690/14

Valentina Ramirez, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

ELWOL Realty, Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff, as limited by her brief, appeals from: (1) an order and judgment (one paper) of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered on or about February 2, 2010, after inquest, in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order (same court, Joseph E. Capella, J.), dated April 30, 2014, which denied plaintiff's motion to "renew" a prior order (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.) dated June 23, 2010, denying plaintiff's motion, in effect, to vacate the February 2, 2010 judgment.

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered on or about February 2, 2010, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order (Joseph E. Capella, J.), dated April 30, 2014, dismissed, without costs, as nonappealable.

Based upon the scant record now before us, which does not include a copy of the inquest transcript, we find no cause to substitute our judgment for that of the inquest court in dismissing plaintiff-tenant's breach of lease and rent overcharge claims for lack of proof of actual damages. Plaintiff, the appellant herein, submitted this appeal on an incomplete record and must therefore suffer the consequences (see Rodriguez v Colon, 115 AD3d 1184 [2014]).

Plaintiff's subsequent motion, though denominated as one for leave to renew an intervening (unappealed) order, was, in reality, one for leave to reargue the intervening order, the denial of which is nonappealable (see D'Andrea v Hutchins, 69 AD3d 541 [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 17, 2014