Appealing Supreme Court’s denial of a party’s motion
Hamilton v Alley, 2016 NY Slip Op 06564, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
William E. Hamilton challenged his termination as a tenured school district administrator by bringing a CPLR Article 78 in Supreme Court. Supreme Court denied Hamilton’s motion to amended his petition. He appealed the Supreme Court’s action and the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court order denying his amended petition in part by granting Hamilton’s motion to amend the petition in part.*
Hamilton next asked Supreme Court “for leave to renew his amended petition.” Supreme Court denied Hamilton’s motion explaining that he had failed to offer new facts “that were unavailable” when the court initially denied the amended petition.
Hamilton then challenged the Supreme Court’s denial of his subsequent motion for leave to renew the amended petition but in this instance the Appellate Division dismissed his appeal.
The Appellate Division explained that Hamilton’s motion, “purportedly seeking leave to renew,” was actually a motion seeking “leave to reargue.” However, said the court, “no appeal lies from an order denying leave to reargue," citing Hill v Milan, 89 AD3d 1458.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: