Gallagher v. Daniella's Restaurant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gallagher v. Daniella's Restaurant

6 A.D.3d 659, 775 N.Y.S.2d 186

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

DecidedApril 26, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 659 (Gallagher v. Daniella's Restaurant) 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

Gallagher v. Daniella's Restaurant, 6 A.D.3d 659, 775 N.Y.S.2d 186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant 643 Manhattan Avenue Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated April 28, 2003, which denied its motion for leave to renew a prior order of the same court (Barron, J.), dated May 17, 2001, denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the defendant 643 Manhattan Avenue Corp. for leave to renew, since it failed to establish a reasonable excuse as to why the additional facts it offered were not submitted on the original motion (see Hasmath v Cameb, 5 AD3d 438 [2004]; Bepat v Chandler, 2 AD3d 764 [2003]; Vita v Alstom Signaling, 308 AD2d 582 [2003]; Morrison v Rosenberg, 278 AD2d 392 [2000]; McNeill v Sandiford, 270 AD2d 467 [2000]; Cole-Hatchard v Grand Union, 270 AD2d 447 [2000]).

In light of our determination, the appellant’s remaining contentions have been rendered academic. Florio, J.P., Smith, Crane and Rivera, 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 643 Manhattan Avenue Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated April 28, 2003, which denied its motion for leave to renew a prior order of the same court (Barron, J.), dated May 17, 2001, denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion of the defendant 643 Manhattan Avenue Corp. for leave to renew, since it failed to establish a reasonable excuse as to why the additional facts it offered were not submitted on the original motion (see Hasmath v Cameb, 5 AD3d 438 [2004]; Bepat v Chandler, 2 AD3d 764 [2003]; Vita v Alstom Signaling, 308 AD2d 582 [2003]; Morrison v Rosenberg, 278 AD2d 392 [2000]; McNeill v Sandiford, 270 AD2d 467 [2000]; Cole-Hatchard v Grand Union, 270 AD2d 447 [2000]).

In light of our determination, the appellant’s remaining contentions have been rendered academic. Florio, J.P., Smith, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 659, 775 N.Y.S.2d 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallagher-v-daniellas-restaurant-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack