Mohamed v Ahmed

Annotate this Case
[*1] Mohamed v Ahmed 2005 NY Slip Op 50207(U) Decided on February 18, 2005 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on February 18, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., GOLIA and RIOS, JJ.
2003-1698 K C

Ahmed H. Mohamed, Respondent,

against

Ahmed H. Ahmed, Appellant.

Appeal by tenant 1) from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (J. Grayshaw, J.), entered October 1, 2003, granting landlord's motion for judgment, deemed (see CLPR 5520 [c]) an appeal from the final judgment entered October 2, 2003, awarding possession and the sum of $2,401.11 in favor of landlord, and 2) from an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (K. Rothenberg, J.), entered October 23, 2003, which denied tenant's motion to reargue the court's order entered October 1, 2003.


Appeal from order entered October 23, 2003, unanimously dismissed.

Final judgment of possession unanimously modified by reducing the amount of the award to the sum of $189.37, as so modified, affirmed without costs.

The record contains copies of the fronts and backs of rent checks issued by the Department of Social Services made payable to landlord on tenant's behalf, indicating payments totalling $2,211.74. Inasmuch as landlord did not deny receipt of same and since the court in its computation of rent arrears failed to credit tenant with said payments, the judgment should be modified accordingly.

Since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, the appeal from said order must be dismissed (see Baron Body Works, Inc. v Smilay, 2002 NY Slip Op 40217[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; see also Falci v Battista, 240 AD2d 364 [1997]; Fahey v County of Nassau, [*2]111 AD2d 214 [1985]).
Decision Date: February 18, 2005

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.