Bauman v. Ottaviano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bauman v. Ottaviano

126 A.D.3d 742, 2 N.Y.S.3d 808

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 11, 2015·No. 2014-03738·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pastoressa, J.), dated January 8, 2014, which denied his motion for leave to renew his opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident, which had been granted in a prior order of the same court dated July 11, 2013.

Ordered that the order dated January 8, 2014, is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying title plaintiffs motion for leave to renew his opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the new evidence submitted would have changed the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Loverde v Gill, 108 AD3d 748 [2013]).

Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Austin and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pastoressa, J.), dated January 8, 2014, which denied his motion for leave to renew his opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident, which had been granted in a prior order of the same court dated July 11, 2013.

Ordered that the order dated January 8, 2014, is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying title plaintiffs motion for leave to renew his opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the new evidence submitted would have changed the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Loverde v Gill, 108 AD3d 748 [2013]).

Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Austin and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Bauman v. Ottaviano, 126 A.D.3d 742, 2 N.Y.S.3d 808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

126 A.D.3d 742 (Bauman v. Ottaviano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related