Brandao v. Segura

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brandao v. Segura

287 A.D.2d 531, 731 N.Y.S.2d 640, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9589

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

DecidedOctober 15, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 531 (Brandao v. Segura) 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

Brandao v. Segura, 287 A.D.2d 531, 731 N.Y.S.2d 640, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9589 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Su Cheng, a/k/a Cheng B. Su, and Shu Chen, a/k/a Chen Shu, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated August 29, 2000, as granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew their prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, which was granted by order of the same court dated January 13, 2000, and, upon renewal, denied the motion.

[532]*532Ordered, that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion for leave to renew is denied, and the order dated January 13, 2000, is reinstated.

The plaintiff submitted evidence in support of the motion for leave to renew which .was readily available when he opposed the appellants’ prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Furthermore, he did not offer a “reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). Therefore, the Supreme Court improperly granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew the appellants’ prior motion (see, Pichardo v Blum, 267 AD2d 441; Doumanis v Conzo, 265 AD2d 296). Bracken, P. J., Krausman, Luciano, Smith and Adams, 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 defendants Su Cheng, a/k/a Cheng B. Su, and Shu Chen, a/k/a Chen Shu, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated August 29, 2000, as granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew their prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, which was granted by order of the same court dated January 13, 2000, and, upon renewal, denied the motion.

[532]*532Ordered, that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion for leave to renew is denied, and the order dated January 13, 2000, is reinstated.

The plaintiff submitted evidence in support of the motion for leave to renew which .was readily available when he opposed the appellants’ prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Furthermore, he did not offer a “reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). Therefore, the Supreme Court improperly granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew the appellants’ prior motion (see, Pichardo v Blum, 267 AD2d 441; Doumanis v Conzo, 265 AD2d 296). Bracken, P. J., Krausman, Luciano, Smith and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 531, 731 N.Y.S.2d 640, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandao-v-segura-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack