Order: Teameia Prunty v. Ashesh Dinesh Mehta M.D., Northwell Health Neuroscience Institute, Northwell Health Partners Llc., North Shore University Hospital

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                (FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/09/2020)
NYS€EF   DOC.      NO.    3                                                                                 RECEIVED   NYSCEF:    07/13/2020



                Short Form Order

                                       NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - NASSAU COUNTY
                Present: Honorable DICCIA T. PINEDA-KIRWAN                                          IA PART 27
                                         Justice
                meee een nnn nn nn nnn nee e eon non nnn nanan nnn nn eee nnn         eee ee,
            TEAMEIA PRUNTY,                                                                         Index No.: 1548/17
                                                                                                    Motion Date: 6/4/20
                                                                                                    Motion Cal. #: 7
                                                          Plaintiff(s),                             Seq. No.: 3
                                    -against-
            ASHESH DINESH MEHTA, M.D., ET AL,
                                                         Defendant(s).
            meter        nnn nn nn nnn nn ee none nnn enna nnn nnn een ence een       e tees,

            The following numbered papers read on this motion by defendants to reargue.
                                                         PAPERS                                     NUMBERED
                                    Notices of Motion-A ffidavits-Exhibits.                           1-4
                                    Answering-A ffidavits-Exhibits.                                   5-6
                                    Reply                                                               7


                                    Upon the foregoing cited papers, and after conference, it is ordered that
            defendants’ motion to reargue is denied.


                                    CPLR 2221 (d) states, in relevant part, that a motion to reargue “shall be based
            upon matters of fact or law overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the
            prior motion[.]” It is not designed to provide an unsuccessful party with successive
            opportunities to reargue issues previously determined, or to present arguments different
            from those originally presented to the court (see Mazinov v Rella, 79 AD3d 979, 980 [2010]
            [internal quotations omitted]). Here, movants failed to demonstrate that the court
            overlooked or misapprehended any facts or law in determining the prior motion (see Grande
            v Peteroy, 39 AD3d 590, 591 [2007]).

                                   Any request for relief not expressly granted herein is denied.


                                    This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.



                                              EME                           a ade *

           Dated: June 5, 2020                          JuL'G ¥ 2020
                                                  WABBAL COUNTY                         DICCIA T.           “KIRWAN, J.S.C.
                                                GUY CLERK'S OFFICE
                                                                                lof1
           F:AMSHARE\NSC\DECISIONS-ORDERS 2020\Rrg.dnd.1548-17,wpd                                                         lof1