Dan's Supreme Supermarkets, Inc. v. Redmont Realty Co.

261 A.D.2d 353, 690 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4502
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 3, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 353 (Dan's Supreme Supermarkets, Inc. v. Redmont Realty Co.) 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
Dan's Supreme Supermarkets, Inc. v. Redmont Realty Co., 261 A.D.2d 353, 690 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff effectively exercised an option to renew a lease, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated March 20, 1998, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) and (3) to vacate an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, entered October 31, 1996, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and declaring that the plaintiff failed to effectively exercise its option to renew the lease.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to vacate the order and judgment entered October 31, 1996, based on newly discovered evidence. The evidence claimed to be “newly discovered” could have been discovered prior to the entry of the order and judgment granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see, Matter [354]*354of Carroll v Bene, 246 AD2d 649). The plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining that evidence.

In any event, the allegedly new evidence consisted of unsworn statements made in a taped telephone conversation. As such, the statements are inadmissible as evidence and are insufficient to create an issue of fact to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, Gomes v Courtesy Bus Co., 251 AD2d 625; Adams v Alexander’s Dept. Store, 226 AD2d 130; Jacobs v Schleicher, 124 AD2d 785).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Osorio v. Bowne Realty Associates, LLC
140 A.D.3d 1136 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Garcia v. Lenox Hill Florist III, Inc.
120 A.D.3d 1296 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Lancer Insurance v. Whitfield
61 A.D.3d 724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
RST Resources, Inc. v. Sumitomo Corp.
33 A.D.3d 321 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Roslyn Savings Bank v. Kline
17 A.D.3d 441 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Federated Conservationists of Westchester County, Inc. v. County of Westchester
4 A.D.3d 326 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Maor Home Sales, Inc. v. Levine
303 A.D.2d 385 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Feldstein v. Rounick
295 A.D.2d 398 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Zaccaria v. Russell
288 A.D.2d 468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Redmont Realty Co., L.P. v. Dan's Supreme Supermarkets, Inc.
281 A.D.2d 610 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Contractors Casualty & Surety Co. v. 535 Broadhollow Realty, L. L. C.
276 A.D.2d 738 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Orix Credit Alliance, Inc. v. Grace Industries, Inc.
274 A.D.2d 424 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
261 A.D.2d 353, 690 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dans-supreme-supermarkets-inc-v-redmont-realty-co-nyappdiv-1999.