Brodie v. Global Asset Recovery, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brodie v. Global Asset Recovery, Inc.

12 A.D.3d 391, 783 N.Y.S.2d 832, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13295

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 391 (Brodie v. Global Asset Recovery, Inc.) 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

Brodie v. Global Asset Recovery, Inc., 12 A.D.3d 391, 783 N.Y.S.2d 832, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated March 25, 2004, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to renew their prior motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, which was determined by order of the same court dated November 18, 2003.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ assertion, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of their motion which was for leave to renew because it was not based upon new facts which would change the court’s prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Allied Intl. Dev. v Barson Composite Corp., 2 AD3d 552 [2003]; Zuccarini v Ziff Davis Media, 306 AD2d 404 [2003]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Fisher, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated March 25, 2004, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to renew their prior motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, which was determined by order of the same court dated November 18, 2003.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ assertion, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of their motion which was for leave to renew because it was not based upon new facts which would change the court’s prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Allied Intl. Dev. v Barson Composite Corp., 2 AD3d 552 [2003]; Zuccarini v Ziff Davis Media, 306 AD2d 404 [2003]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 391, 783 N.Y.S.2d 832, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brodie-v-global-asset-recovery-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack