Jacobs v. Sabo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jacobs v. Sabo

17 A.D.3d 321, 791 N.Y.S.2d 835

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

DecidedApril 4, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 321 (Jacobs v. Sabo) 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

Jacobs v. Sabo, 17 A.D.3d 321, 791 N.Y.S.2d 835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated December 5, 2003, which denied his motion for leave to renew a prior motion of the defendant David Sabo for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, which was determined by an order of the same court dated August 25, 2003.

Ordered.that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A motion for leave to renew must be supported by new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time of the prior motion, were not known to the party seeking renewal, and, consequently, were not made known to the court (see Palmer v Toledo, 266 AD2d 268 [1999]). Here, the plaintiff failed to offer any new facts or a valid explanation as to why the medical report, submitted on the motion to renew, was not made available earlier (see Greene v New York City Hous. Auth., 283 AD2d 458 [2001]; Riccio v Deperalta, 274 AD2d 384 [2000]). Accordingly, the court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Crane and Fisher, 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 intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated December 5, 2003, which denied his motion for leave to renew a prior motion of the defendant David Sabo for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, which was determined by an order of the same court dated August 25, 2003.

Ordered.that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A motion for leave to renew must be supported by new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time of the prior motion, were not known to the party seeking renewal, and, consequently, were not made known to the court (see Palmer v Toledo, 266 AD2d 268 [1999]). Here, the plaintiff failed to offer any new facts or a valid explanation as to why the medical report, submitted on the motion to renew, was not made available earlier (see Greene v New York City Hous. Auth., 283 AD2d 458 [2001]; Riccio v Deperalta, 274 AD2d 384 [2000]). Accordingly, the court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Crane and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 321, 791 N.Y.S.2d 835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobs-v-sabo-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack