Santiago v. New York City Hous. Auth., 227 A.D.2d 114 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Santiago v. New York City Hous. Auth., 227 A.D.2d 114 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Miller v. State of New York (nyappdiv, 2026-06-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Miller v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
Auth. , 227 AD2d 114, 115 [1st Dept 1996]). [*2] In light of our prior decision in this matter, holding that the Equal Rights Amendment, which, among other things, added the category of "age" to the Civil Rights Clause set forth in article I, § 11 (a) of the State Constitution, did not repeal or invalidate article VI, § 25 (b) of the State Constitution or render Judiciary Law §§ 23 and 115 unconstitutional ( Matter of Miller v State of New York , 247 AD3d 502 , 502-504 [1st Dept 2026]), which decision has been appealed to the Court of Appeals, we find no grounds to consider proposed interv…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lillian Santiago
v.
New York City Housing Authority
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 2, 1996.
227 A.D.2d 114
1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4738
Published

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.),[*115] entered October 13, 1995, which denied defendant’s motion for reargument of an order of the same court entered April 17, 1995, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a non-appealable order.

Defendant’s motion for reargument consisted of a reiteration of the arguments made on the original motion for summary judgment based upon the case law on which defendant had relied. No new facts or evidence were presented to the court and defendant specifically stated that the motion was based upon defendant’s belief that the court misapplied the controlling principles of law. The IAS Court in its decision explicitly stated that it was denying defendant’s motion for reargument and no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for reargument (Bell v Toothsavers, Inc., 213 AD2d 199). We note, however, that if an appeal had been timely taken from the court’s decision we would have reversed and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see, Martinez v Lazaroff, 48 NY2d 819; Abreu v Stratford Realty Assocs., 208 AD2d 465). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.