Brower v. TRW Title Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brower v. TRW Title Insurance

233 A.D.2d 473, 650 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12876

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 233 A.D.2d 473 (Brower v. TRW Title 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

Brower v. TRW Title Insurance, 233 A.D.2d 473, 650 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated December 13, 1995, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for renewal and, upon renewal, vacated so much of its prior order dated March 17, 1995, as dismissed the plaintiffs’ second cause of action.

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

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting renewal to the plaintiffs based on two new facts (see, CPLR 2221; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558; Bulis v Di Lorenzo, 142 AD2d 707). Further, upon renewal, the court properly vacated so much of the prior order as granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing the plaintiffs’ second cause of action for breach of a title insurance contract, since the new material raised a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The defendants’ remaining contentions lack merit. Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages, inter alia, for breach of contract, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated December 13, 1995, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for renewal and, upon renewal, vacated so much of its prior order dated March 17, 1995, as dismissed the plaintiffs’ second cause of action.

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

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting renewal to the plaintiffs based on two new facts (see, CPLR 2221; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558; Bulis v Di Lorenzo, 142 AD2d 707). Further, upon renewal, the court properly vacated so much of the prior order as granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing the plaintiffs’ second cause of action for breach of a title insurance contract, since the new material raised a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557).

The defendants’ remaining contentions lack merit. Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 473, 650 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brower-v-trw-title-insurance-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack