FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2022 03:11 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 97
`
`INDEX NO. 708258/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PART 36
`
`Index No. 708258/20
`Seq. No. 2
`
`
`Short Form Order
`NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - QUEENS COUNTY
`PRESENT: HON. ROBERT I. CALORAS
`
` Justice
`-----------------------------------------------------------------X
`GIOVANNI IPPOLITO and TANYA
`VLACANCICH IPPOLITO,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`-against-
`
`DISTEFANO LLC.
`Defendants
`
`
`------------------------------------------------------------------X
`The following papers numbered E90-E91, E94-E96 read on this motion by Defendant for an order for the
`following: (1) pursuant to CPLR 2221(d), granting defendant leave to reargue the Defendant's cross-
`motion for summary judgment on the grounds the Court overlooked matters of fact and law; (2) upon
`reargument, for an order granting defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment; and the cross motion
`by Plaintiffs for an order for the following: (1) pursuant to CPLR 2221(d), granting the Ippolitos leave to
`reargue their motion for summary judgment on the grounds that, in its Short Form Order, dated August 5,
`2021, the Court overlooked matters of fact and law; (2) upon reargument, (i) pursuant to CPLR 3212,
`entering summary judgment in favor of the Ippolitos and against Defendant-Counterclaimant Distefano
`LLC, (ii) dismissing the Defendant’s affirmative defenses and counterclaim, and (iii) entering an Order
`declaring that the Ippolitos, and no one else, are the lawful owners of the Disputed Property (as defined in
`the motion papers).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Notice of Motion-Affirmation-Exhibits………………..........
`Notice of Cross Motion-Memo of Law in Support of the
`Cross and in Opposition to the Motion ……………….…….
`Memo of Law in Opposition to the Cross Motion
`And in further support of the Motion………………………..
`
`Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that Defendant’s motion and Plaintiffs’ cross motion
`are denied for the following reasons:
`In an order issued by this Court on August 5, 2021, the branch of Plaintiffs’ motion seeking
`summary judgment on their claim that they acquired title by adverse possession to the portion of the
`Home which encroaches upon defendant’s property was granted, and the remaining branches of
`Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment declaring that they own the disputed parcels, to wit, the
`Deck and Walkway in fee simple by adverse possession, were denied. In addition, this Court also
`denied Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment in the prior order. Defendant now seeks to
`reargue its prior cross motion that was denied, and Plaintiffs seek to reargue the branch of their prior
`motion that was denied.
` "A motion for leave to reargue 'shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly
`overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include
`any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion' " (Grimm v Bailey, 105 AD3d 703, 704, (2d Dept
`2013], quoting CPLR 2221 [d] [2]; see Matter of American Alternative Ins. Corp. v Pelszynski, 85
`
`
`
`PAPERS
`NUMBERED
`E90-E91
`
`E94-E95
`
`E96
`
`1 of 2
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 01/21/2022 03:11 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 97
`
`INDEX NO. 708258/2020
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/21/2022
`
`2 of 2
`
`AD3d 1157, 1158 [2d Dept. 2011]). "While the determination to grant leave to reargue a motion lies
`within the sound discretion of the court, a motion for leave to reargue is not designed to provide an
`unsuccessful party with successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided, or to present
`arguments different from those originally presented" (Matter of Anthony J. Carter, DDS, P.C. v
`Carter, 81 AD3d 819, 820 [2d Dept 2011], [citations and internal quotations omitted]).
`
`Here, this Court has reviewed its prior order and the instant motion and cross motion and
`finds that it would be an improvident exercise of its discretion to grant reargument to either moving
`party. This Court finds that the moving parties have failed to demonstrate that the Court overlooked
`or misapprehended any matters of fact or law in denying the branch of Plaintiffs’ prior motion for
`summary judgment that sought a declaration declaring that they own the disputed parcels, to wit, the
`Deck and Walkway in fee simple by adverse possession, and denying Defendants’ prior cross motion
`(See, Ahmed v Pannone, 116 A.D.3d 802 (2d Dept 2014). Accordingly, the instant motion and cross
`motion are denied.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 19, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
` _________________________
`ROBERT I. CALORAS, J.S.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`