Glynn v. Johns

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glynn v. Johns

300 A.D.2d 540, 752 N.Y.S.2d 564

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 540 (Glynn v. Johns) 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

Glynn v. Johns, 300 A.D.2d 540, 752 N.Y.S.2d 564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for fraud and breach of a promissory note, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated December 19, 2001, which denied his motion for leave to renew a prior motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action asserted in the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion for leave to renew, as it was not based upon newly-discovered evidence and there was no adequate explanation for the defendant’s failure to submit the purportedly new evidence at the time of the prior motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Scott v Avis Rent A Car, 289 AD2d 471; see also Matrix Fin. Servs. Corp. v McKiernan, 295 AD2d 579). Smith, J.P., O’Brien, Krausman 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 fraud and breach of a promissory note, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated December 19, 2001, which denied his motion for leave to renew a prior motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action asserted in the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion for leave to renew, as it was not based upon newly-discovered evidence and there was no adequate explanation for the defendant’s failure to submit the purportedly new evidence at the time of the prior motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Scott v Avis Rent A Car, 289 AD2d 471; see also Matrix Fin. Servs. Corp. v McKiernan, 295 AD2d 579). Smith, J.P., O’Brien, Krausman and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 540, 752 N.Y.S.2d 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glynn-v-johns-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack