Carullo v. Pistilli Construction & Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carullo v. Pistilli Construction & Development Corp.

64 A.D.3d 624, 881 N.Y.S.2d 896

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

DecidedJuly 14, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.3d 624 (Carullo v. Pistilli Construction & Development Corp.) 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

Carullo v. Pistilli Construction & Development Corp., 64 A.D.3d 624, 881 N.Y.S.2d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Elliot, J.), dated February 6, 2008, which denied his motion for leave to renew his prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendant’s second affirmative defense and his opposition to the defendant’s prior cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7), which had been determined in an order dated June 8, 2005.

Ordered that the order dated February 6, 2008 is affirmed, with costs.

A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new or additional facts “not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]), and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; see O’Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 631 [2006]; see also O’Dell v Caswell, 12 AD3d 492 [2004]; Rizzotto v Allstate Ins. Co., 300 AD2d 562 [2002]; Williams v Fitzsimmons, 295 AD2d 342 [2002]). The plaintiffs motion for leave to renew was properly denied since he failed to set forth a reasonable justification for his failure to present the alleged new facts on the prior motion (see O’Connell v Post, 27 AD3d at 631). Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers and Lott, 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 damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Elliot, J.), dated February 6, 2008, which denied his motion for leave to renew his prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendant’s second affirmative defense and his opposition to the defendant’s prior cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7), which had been determined in an order dated June 8, 2005.

Ordered that the order dated February 6, 2008 is affirmed, with costs.

A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new or additional facts “not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]), and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; see O’Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 631 [2006]; see also O’Dell v Caswell, 12 AD3d 492 [2004]; Rizzotto v Allstate Ins. Co., 300 AD2d 562 [2002]; Williams v Fitzsimmons, 295 AD2d 342 [2002]). The plaintiffs motion for leave to renew was properly denied since he failed to set forth a reasonable justification for his failure to present the alleged new facts on the prior motion (see O’Connell v Post, 27 AD3d at 631). Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.3d 624, 881 N.Y.S.2d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carullo-v-pistilli-construction-development-corp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack