Flomenhaft v. Fine Arts Museum of Long Island

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flomenhaft v. Fine Arts Museum of Long Island

255 A.D.2d 290, 679 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11568

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

DecidedNovember 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 290 (Flomenhaft v. Fine Arts Museum of Long Island) 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

Flomenhaft v. Fine Arts Museum of Long Island, 255 A.D.2d 290, 679 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated June 12, 1997, which denied her motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There is nothing in the instant motion that could not have been raised in the plaintiff’s previous motion for summary judgment. It is well established that “ ‘[mjultiple summary judgment motions in the same action should be discouraged in the absence of a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause’ ” (Giganti v Town of Hempstead, 186 AD2d 627, 628; La Freniere v Capital Dist. Transp. Auth., 105 AD2d 517, 518; see also, Dillon v Dean, 170 AD2d 574). Thus, the plaintiff’s latest motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Mangano, P. J., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated June 12, 1997, which denied her motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

There is nothing in the instant motion that could not have been raised in the plaintiff’s previous motion for summary judgment. It is well established that “ ‘[mjultiple summary judgment motions in the same action should be discouraged in the absence of a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause’ ” (Giganti v Town of Hempstead, 186 AD2d 627, 628; La Freniere v Capital Dist. Transp. Auth., 105 AD2d 517, 518; see also, Dillon v Dean, 170 AD2d 574). Thus, the plaintiff’s latest motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Mangano, P. J., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 290, 679 N.Y.S.2d 322, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flomenhaft-v-fine-arts-museum-of-long-island-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack