Amtrust-NP SFR Venture, LLC v. Vazquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amtrust-NP SFR Venture, LLC v. Vazquez

140 A.D.3d 541, 32 N.Y.S.3d 497

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

DecidedJune 21, 2016

Docket1504 810148/12

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 541 (Amtrust-NP SFR Venture, LLC v. Vazquez) 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

Amtrust-NP SFR Venture, LLC v. Vazquez, 140 A.D.3d 541, 32 N.Y.S.3d 497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenny, J.), entered May 15, 2015, which, insofar as appealable, denied defendant’s motion for renewal of a prior order, same court and Justice, entered February 10, 2015, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, striking defendant’s answer and counterclaims and appointing a referee to compute the sums due and owing to plaintiff under the subject note and mortgage, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to renew. The affidavit of Stephen Dibert, and the additional documents at *542 tached, particularly the new purported copy of the note, were properly rejected by the court in that they were submitted for the first time in defendant’s reply papers on the motion to renew and reargue, and plaintiff had no opportunity to respond to them (see All State Flooring Distribs., L.P. v MD Floors, LLC, 131 AD3d 834, 835-836 [1st Dept 2015]; Dannasch v Bifulco, 184 AD2d 415, 416-417 [1st Dept 1992]). The court also properly denied defendant’s motion on the ground that he offered no justification whatsoever as to why he did not obtain the new evidence in time to submit it in opposition to plaintiff’s original motion, and did not assert that he made any effort, let alone a diligent effort, to obtain this new evidence, which was readily available (see Altschuler v Jobman 478/480, LLC., 135 AD3d 439, 441 [1st Dept 2016]; Queens Unit Venture, LLC v Tyson Ct. Owners Corp., 111 AD3d 552 [1st Dept 2013]; compare Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v City of New York, 280 AD2d 374 [1st Dept 2001]).

This Court previously dismissed so much of this appeal as was based on the motion court’s denial of defendant’s motion to reargue (see Amtrust-NP SFR Venture, LLC v Vazquez, 2015 NY Slip Op 91571[U] [2015]), which is not appealable. In light of the dismissal of the appeal, we reject defendant’s remaining arguments.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenny, J.), entered May 15, 2015, which, insofar as appealable, denied defendant’s motion for renewal of a prior order, same court and Justice, entered February 10, 2015, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, striking defendant’s answer and counterclaims and appointing a referee to compute the sums due and owing to plaintiff under the subject note and mortgage, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to renew. The affidavit of Stephen Dibert, and the additional documents at *542 tached, particularly the new purported copy of the note, were properly rejected by the court in that they were submitted for the first time in defendant’s reply papers on the motion to renew and reargue, and plaintiff had no opportunity to respond to them (see All State Flooring Distribs., L.P. v MD Floors, LLC, 131 AD3d 834, 835-836 [1st Dept 2015]; Dannasch v Bifulco, 184 AD2d 415, 416-417 [1st Dept 1992]). The court also properly denied defendant’s motion on the ground that he offered no justification whatsoever as to why he did not obtain the new evidence in time to submit it in opposition to plaintiff’s original motion, and did not assert that he made any effort, let alone a diligent effort, to obtain this new evidence, which was readily available (see Altschuler v Jobman 478/480, LLC., 135 AD3d 439, 441 [1st Dept 2016]; Queens Unit Venture, LLC v Tyson Ct. Owners Corp., 111 AD3d 552 [1st Dept 2013]; compare Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v City of New York, 280 AD2d 374 [1st Dept 2001]).

This Court previously dismissed so much of this appeal as was based on the motion court’s denial of defendant’s motion to reargue (see Amtrust-NP SFR Venture, LLC v Vazquez, 2015 NY Slip Op 91571[U] [2015]), which is not appealable. In light of the dismissal of the appeal, we reject defendant’s remaining arguments.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 541, 32 N.Y.S.3d 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amtrust-np-sfr-venture-llc-v-vazquez-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack