Hannalyn Realty Co. v. McLaughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hannalyn Realty Co. v. McLaughlin

10 A.D.3d 409, 780 N.Y.S.2d 786, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10325

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

DecidedAugust 16, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 409 (Hannalyn Realty Co. v. McLaughlin) 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

Hannalyn Realty Co. v. McLaughlin, 10 A.D.3d 409, 780 N.Y.S.2d 786, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10325 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel the determination of claims to real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated July 31, 2003, which, among other things, denied their motion, in effect, for leave to renew their prior motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, for leave to renew their prior motion for summary judgment. In support of their motion, the plaintiffs submitted affidavits in which they each averred that their recollection of the events transpiring 16 years earlier regarding the subject transaction was refreshed, together with two documents they alleged to have now located which were ap[410]*410parently in their possession at the time the prior motion was made. Since the plaintiffs offered no “reasonable justification” for their failure to present the documents on their prior motion, leave to renew was properly denied (see CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; Brown v Citibank, 5 AD3d 342 [2004]; Ortiz v Tusa, 300 AD2d 288 [2002]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions either are without merit or are improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel the determination of claims to real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated July 31, 2003, which, among other things, denied their motion, in effect, for leave to renew their prior motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, for leave to renew their prior motion for summary judgment. In support of their motion, the plaintiffs submitted affidavits in which they each averred that their recollection of the events transpiring 16 years earlier regarding the subject transaction was refreshed, together with two documents they alleged to have now located which were ap[410]*410parently in their possession at the time the prior motion was made. Since the plaintiffs offered no “reasonable justification” for their failure to present the documents on their prior motion, leave to renew was properly denied (see CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; Brown v Citibank, 5 AD3d 342 [2004]; Ortiz v Tusa, 300 AD2d 288 [2002]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions either are without merit or are improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 409, 780 N.Y.S.2d 786, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hannalyn-realty-co-v-mclaughlin-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack