Baker v. Monarch Life Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Baker v. Monarch Life Insurance

12 A.D.3d 630, 784 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14493

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 630 (Baker v. Monarch Life Insurance) 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

Baker v. Monarch Life Insurance, 12 A.D.3d 630, 784 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14493 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover benefits under a disability insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered September 18, 2003, which denied her motion for leave to renew the defendant’s prior motion for reargument which resulted in an order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew since she did not offer a reasonable justification for her failure to submit the additional evidence presented upon renewal in opposition to the defendant’s original motion for summary judgment or its motion for leave to reargue (see CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; Caramoor Capital Group v Blauner, 302 AD2d 550 [2003]; Falkowitz v Peters, 294 AD2d 330 [2002]; Matter of Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v Nevelus, 292 AD2d 381 [2002]). Krausman, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover benefits under a disability insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered September 18, 2003, which denied her motion for leave to renew the defendant’s prior motion for reargument which resulted in an order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew since she did not offer a reasonable justification for her failure to submit the additional evidence presented upon renewal in opposition to the defendant’s original motion for summary judgment or its motion for leave to reargue (see CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; Caramoor Capital Group v Blauner, 302 AD2d 550 [2003]; Falkowitz v Peters, 294 AD2d 330 [2002]; Matter of Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v Nevelus, 292 AD2d 381 [2002]). Krausman, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 630, 784 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-monarch-life-insurance-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack