Crissa v. Noonan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crissa v. Noonan

147 A.D.2d 610, 538 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1993

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A.D.2d 610 (Crissa v. Noonan) 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

Crissa v. Noonan, 147 A.D.2d 610, 538 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1993 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated December 22, 1987, which denied his motion for renewal with respect to a prior motion of the same court dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances, where the new evidence presented did not bear upon the substance of the court’s prior ruling, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the original order. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to offer any explanation for his lack of diligence in making his application. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Hooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated December 22, 1987, which denied his motion for renewal with respect to a prior motion of the same court dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances, where the new evidence presented did not bear upon the substance of the court’s prior ruling, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the original order. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to offer any explanation for his lack of diligence in making his application. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Hooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 610, 538 N.Y.S.2d 986, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crissa-v-noonan-nyappdiv-1989.