1009 Second Avenue Associates v. Benenson Capital Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

1009 Second Avenue Associates v. Benenson Capital Co.

272 A.D.2d 254, 710 N.Y.S.2d 241, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6108

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 25, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 254 (1009 Second Avenue Associates v. Benenson Capital Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1009 Second Avenue Associates v. Benenson Capital Co., 272 A.D.2d 254, 710 N.Y.S.2d 241, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner-Gans, J.), entered March 17, 2000, which, in an action to recover property damages sustained by plaintiffs’ building during the construction of defendants’ adjacent building, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion to renew their motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ motion to renew was properly denied absent a reasonable excuse for their not having included the new evidence, mainly consisting of deposition testimony of their own representatives, in the original motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). Moreover, as the IAS Court also held, the new evidence raises issues of credibility inappropriate for consideration on a motion for summary judgment. We have considered and rejected defendants’ other arguments. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner-Gans, J.), entered March 17, 2000, which, in an action to recover property damages sustained by plaintiffs’ building during the construction of defendants’ adjacent building, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion to renew their motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ motion to renew was properly denied absent a reasonable excuse for their not having included the new evidence, mainly consisting of deposition testimony of their own representatives, in the original motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). Moreover, as the IAS Court also held, the new evidence raises issues of credibility inappropriate for consideration on a motion for summary judgment. We have considered and rejected defendants’ other arguments. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 254, 710 N.Y.S.2d 241, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1009-second-avenue-associates-v-benenson-capital-co-nyappdiv-2000.