Gadson v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gadson v. New York City Housing Authority

263 A.D.2d 464, 691 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7873

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 12, 1999·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated May 5, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew the defendant’s prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and, upon renewal, denied that motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The requirement that a motion for leave to renew be based upon newly-discovered facts is a flexible one and a court, in its discretion, may grant renewal upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the original motion (see, Perla Assocs. v Ginsberg, 256 AD2d 303). Under the circumstances of this case, the grant of renewal was a proper exercise of the Supreme Court’s discretion.

The affidavits submitted by the plaintiffs upon renewal were sufficient to create triable issues of fact. Therefore, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Bracken, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated May 5, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew the defendant’s prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and, upon renewal, denied that motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The requirement that a motion for leave to renew be based upon newly-discovered facts is a flexible one and a court, in its discretion, may grant renewal upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the original motion (see, Perla Assocs. v Ginsberg, 256 AD2d 303). Under the circumstances of this case, the grant of renewal was a proper exercise of the Supreme Court’s discretion.

The affidavits submitted by the plaintiffs upon renewal were sufficient to create triable issues of fact. Therefore, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied (see, CPLR 3212 [b]). Bracken, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Gadson v. New York City Housing Authority, 263 A.D.2d 464, 691 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

263 A.D.2d 464 (Gadson v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related