Xerox Corp. v Stewart

[*1] Xerox Corp. v Stewart 2005 NY Slip Op 50070(U) Decided on January 20, 2005 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 20, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: January 20, 2005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : PESCE, P.J., PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ.
2004-395 Q C

XEROX CORPORATION, Respondent,

against

CHARMAINE M. STEWART, d/b/a CHARMAINE M. STEWART & ASSOCIATES, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the Civil Court, Queens County (K. Kerrigan, J.), entered November 20, 2003, which denied her motion, denominated as one seeking to vacate a judgment entered pursuant to an order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, but which was, in effect, a motion seeking reargument of plaintiff's prior motion.

Appeal unanimously dismissed.

Defendant appeals from an order denying her motion which was denominated as one seeking to vacate a judgment entered against her pursuant to an order granting plaintiff's prior motion for summary judgment. Defendant's motion, in effect, only sought reargument of the motion which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (see Boboyev v Gomez, 304 AD2d 600, 601 [2003]; Holmes v Hanson, 286 AD2d 750 [2001]; Baciu v City Univ. of N. Y., 283 AD2d 447 [2001]; Muro v Bay Ready Mix & Supplies, 282 AD2d 584 [2001]). Inasmuch as no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for reargument (see Malik v Campbell, 289 AD2d 540 [2001]), the appeal must be dismissed.

On this appeal, defendant asserts that the Civil Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In dismissing the appeal, we note in passing that defendant's assertion is without merit. While defendant apparently owes plaintiff an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional limit of the Civil Court, plaintiff opted to seek recovery of an amount within the court's jurisdictional limit rather [*2]than the full amount apparently owed by defendant. Accordingly, the court had subject matter jurisdiction.
Decision Date: January 20, 2005