Himed v. Grady

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Himed v. Grady

210 A.D.2d 30, 619 N.Y.S.2d 558

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 30 (Himed v. Grady) 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

Himed v. Grady, 210 A.D.2d 30, 619 N.Y.S.2d 558 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered October 21, 1993, which denied defendant’s motion to renew the April 30, 1993 denial of her prior motion for leave to amend, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that renewal was not warranted since defendant failed to offer an adequate excuse for failing to submit the additional evidence submitted upon renewal at the time of the initial motion (300 W. Realty Co. v City of New York, 99 AD2d 708).

Upon the record here, we reject defendant’s claim that a discretionary grant of renewal would have been appropriate in this case (De Almeida v Finesod, 160 AD2d 491; Pinto v Pinto, 120 AD2d 337). We have considered defendant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered October 21, 1993, which denied defendant’s motion to renew the April 30, 1993 denial of her prior motion for leave to amend, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that renewal was not warranted since defendant failed to offer an adequate excuse for failing to submit the additional evidence submitted upon renewal at the time of the initial motion (300 W. Realty Co. v City of New York, 99 AD2d 708).

Upon the record here, we reject defendant’s claim that a discretionary grant of renewal would have been appropriate in this case (De Almeida v Finesod, 160 AD2d 491; Pinto v Pinto, 120 AD2d 337). We have considered defendant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 30, 619 N.Y.S.2d 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/himed-v-grady-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack