S & H Clinton Assoc., LLC v Cherry

[*1] S & H Clinton Assoc., LLC v Cherry 2021 NY Slip Op 51244(U) Decided on December 16, 2021 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 December 16, 2021
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, P.J., JERRY GARGUILO, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ
2021-165 N C

S & H Clinton Associates, LLC, Respondent,

against

Tyrone Cherry, Appellant.

Tyrone Cherry, appellant pro se. Horing, Welikson & Rosen P.C. (Randi Beth Gilbert of counsel), for respondent (no brief filed).

Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Scott Fairgrieve, J.), dated October 29, 2019. The order denied tenant's motion for, in effect, leave to reargue his motion made upon alleged newly-discovered evidence to "[r]e-open [the] case" in a nonpayment summary proceeding.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

In this nonpayment proceeding to recover possession of a rent-stabilized apartment, by order dated December 14, 2018, the District Court denied tenant's postjudgment motion to "[r]e-open [the] case" based on purported newly-discovered evidence regarding the service of the rent notice, the notice of petition and the petition. Tenant then moved for, in effect, leave to reargue that prior motion and now appeals from an order of the District Court dated October 29, 2019, wherein the District Court denied tenant's motion. However, it is well settled that no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see U.S. Bank N.A. v McCaffery, 186 AD3d 897, 899 [2020]; Liang v Yi Jing Tan, 155 AD3d 1022, 1023 [2017]).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

RUDERMAN, P.J., and VOUTSINAS, J., concur.

GARGUILO, J., taking no part.

ENTER:
Paul Kenny
Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 16, 2021