Christ v. Solomon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Christ v. Solomon

6 A.D.3d 569, 774 N.Y.S.2d 833

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

DecidedApril 19, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 569 (Christ v. Solomon) 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

Christ v. Solomon, 6 A.D.3d 569, 774 N.Y.S.2d 833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated March 21, 2003, which denied their motion for leave to renew the defendant’s prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew the prior summary judgment motion, as it was based on evidence that could have been discovered earlier with due diligence (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Dawkins v Long Is. R.R., 302 AD2d 349, 350 [2003]; Ford v Lasky, 300 AD2d 536, 537 [2002]). Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to offer a justifiable excuse for the eight-month delay in making the motion (see Cole-Hatchard v Grand Union, 270 AD2d 447, 448 [2000]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit (see Martinez v City of New York, 292 AD2d 349 [2002]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, 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 legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated March 21, 2003, which denied their motion for leave to renew the defendant’s prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew the prior summary judgment motion, as it was based on evidence that could have been discovered earlier with due diligence (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Dawkins v Long Is. R.R., 302 AD2d 349, 350 [2003]; Ford v Lasky, 300 AD2d 536, 537 [2002]). Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to offer a justifiable excuse for the eight-month delay in making the motion (see Cole-Hatchard v Grand Union, 270 AD2d 447, 448 [2000]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit (see Martinez v City of New York, 292 AD2d 349 [2002]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 569, 774 N.Y.S.2d 833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christ-v-solomon-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack