Simone Cooper, Appellant, v. Apostolic Gospel Church of Christ, Inc., Respondent. (2026)

ORDERED that, on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from an order dated July 10, 2025 is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the amended order dated July 30, 2025 (see CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the amended order is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the principal sum of $1,738, as a refund of amounts paid to defendant. Following a nonjury trial, the Civil Court (Pamela P. Fynes, J.), in a written decision dated May 13, 2025, dismissed plaintiff's action. On June 9, 2025, a judgment was entered pursuant to the May 13, 2025 decision. More than 40 days after the filing of the decision, plaintiff moved to "[r]e-argue" it. Plaintiff's motion was denied by order dated July 10, 2025 (Ellen E. Edwards, J.). By amended order dated July 30, 2025, the Civil Court (Ellen E. Edwards, J.) again denied plaintiff's motion, stating that reargument motions must "be based upon matters of fact or law that were overlooked or misapplied by the Court. CPLR 2221 (d) (2)." Plaintiff appeals from the July 10, 2025 order, which we deem to be a premature appeal from the July 30, 2025 amended order (see CPLR 5520 [c]).

At the outset, we note that defendant's motion challenging the court's decision after trial is, in effect, one brought pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b) rather than one seeking reargument thereof pursuant to CPLR 2221, as defendant and the Civil Court treated it, because "CPLR 2221 does not permit reargument of a decision after trial and is limited to review of a court's ruling on a prior motion" (Rice v Rice, 135 AD3d 928, 928-929 [2016]). We affirm the amended order denying plaintiff's motion, albeit on grounds different from those relied upon by the Civil Court, as it rendered substantial justice between the parties (see CCA 1804, 1807).

Plaintiff's motion, even if deemed a motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b) to set aside the May 13, 2025 decision, and the June 9, 2025 judgment entered thereon, was untimely as it was not made within 15 days after the filing of the decision (see CPLR 4405; Oppedisano v Arnold, 191 AD3d 794, 796 [2021]; Rice v Rice, 135 AD3d at 929), and failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay (see Rice v Rice, 135 AD3d at 929). Consequently, we find no basis to disturb the amended order (see Coutrier v Haraden Motorcar Corp., 237 AD2d 774, 777-778 [1997]; Huggins v Velaoras, 24 Misc 3d 141[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51722[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2009]; Sisters of Charity Healthcare Sys. v Zarelli, 16 Misc 3d 130[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51341[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]).

Accordingly, the amended order is affirmed.

TOUSSAINT, P.J., MUNDY and QUIÑONES, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: June 12, 2026