Hodzic v. M. Cary, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hodzic v. M. Cary, Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 5206, 151 A.D.3d 1034, 54 N.Y.S.3d 865

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

DecidedJune 28, 2017

Docket2015-02214

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5206 (Hodzic v. M. Cary, Inc.) 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

Hodzic v. M. Cary, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 5206, 151 A.D.3d 1034, 54 N.Y.S.3d 865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant third-party defendant Dimensional Drywall & Acoustic appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), entered October 2, 2014, which denied its motion for leave to renew those branches of its prior motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the third-party complaint, and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, which had been denied in an order of the same court entered February 7, 2014.

Ordered that the order entered October 2, 2014, is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The appellant’s initial motion, inter alia, for summary judgment was denied as untimely in an order entered February 7, 2014, from which the appellant did not appeal. Thereafter, the appellant moved for leave to renew those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment, submitting deposition testimony that had been unavailable previously. The Supreme Court denied that motion.

A motion for leave to renew must be based upon “new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; see Doviak v Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, 90 AD3d 696, 700-701 [2011]). Here, the new facts proffered by the appellant did not change the prior determination concerning the untimeliness of its motion for summary judgment (see Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, P.J.S.C. v Credit Suisse Sec. [USA] LLC, 114 AD3d 432, 433 [2014]; Lucente v Riverbay Corp., 58 AD3d 451, 452 [2009]; Silvera v *1035 Strike Long Is., 52 AD3d 497, 498 [2008]; Tricoche v Warner Amex Satellite Entertainment Co., 48 AD3d 671, 673 [2008]; Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v T & G Contr. Inc., 44 AD3d 933, 934 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for leave to renew.

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Austin and Cohen, 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 third-party defendant Dimensional Drywall & Acoustic appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), entered October 2, 2014, which denied its motion for leave to renew those branches of its prior motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the third-party complaint, and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, which had been denied in an order of the same court entered February 7, 2014.

Ordered that the order entered October 2, 2014, is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The appellant’s initial motion, inter alia, for summary judgment was denied as untimely in an order entered February 7, 2014, from which the appellant did not appeal. Thereafter, the appellant moved for leave to renew those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment, submitting deposition testimony that had been unavailable previously. The Supreme Court denied that motion.

A motion for leave to renew must be based upon “new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; see Doviak v Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, 90 AD3d 696, 700-701 [2011]). Here, the new facts proffered by the appellant did not change the prior determination concerning the untimeliness of its motion for summary judgment (see Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, P.J.S.C. v Credit Suisse Sec. [USA] LLC, 114 AD3d 432, 433 [2014]; Lucente v Riverbay Corp., 58 AD3d 451, 452 [2009]; Silvera v *1035 Strike Long Is., 52 AD3d 497, 498 [2008]; Tricoche v Warner Amex Satellite Entertainment Co., 48 AD3d 671, 673 [2008]; Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v T & G Contr. Inc., 44 AD3d 933, 934 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for leave to renew.

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5206, 151 A.D.3d 1034, 54 N.Y.S.3d 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodzic-v-m-cary-inc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack