East 26th Street & Park Avenue Realty v. Shaw Industries, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

East 26th Street & Park Avenue Realty v. Shaw Industries, Inc.

2 A.D.3d 171, 767 N.Y.S.2d 775, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12981

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 171 (East 26th Street & Park Avenue Realty v. Shaw Industries, Inc.) 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

East 26th Street & Park Avenue Realty v. Shaw Industries, Inc., 2 A.D.3d 171, 767 N.Y.S.2d 775, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12981 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered October 9, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon renewal, reinstated the earlier-dismissed complaint against HRH Construction Corporation and granted leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Newly discovered facts, not available at the time of general contractor HRH’s prior dismissal motion, would have altered the determination on that motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). Plaintiff provided reasonable justification for failure to present such facts on the prior motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]), in light of recent deposition testimony disclosing that HRH had concealed the manner in which the carpeting had been damaged, and frustrated plaintiffs efforts, after its installation, to determine the cause of the damage.

We have considered HRH’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered October 9, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon renewal, reinstated the earlier-dismissed complaint against HRH Construction Corporation and granted leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Newly discovered facts, not available at the time of general contractor HRH’s prior dismissal motion, would have altered the determination on that motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). Plaintiff provided reasonable justification for failure to present such facts on the prior motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]), in light of recent deposition testimony disclosing that HRH had concealed the manner in which the carpeting had been damaged, and frustrated plaintiffs efforts, after its installation, to determine the cause of the damage.

We have considered HRH’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 171, 767 N.Y.S.2d 775, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/east-26th-street-park-avenue-realty-v-shaw-industries-inc-nyappdiv-2003.