Kent v. Lincoln Metrocenter Parts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kent v. Lincoln Metrocenter Parts

265 A.D.2d 192, 696 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10164

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 192 (Kent v. Lincoln Metrocenter Parts) 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

Kent v. Lincoln Metrocenter Parts, 265 A.D.2d 192, 696 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered September 1, 1998, which denied plaintiff’s [193]*193motion to renew his previously denied motion to vacate the dismissal of his complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Renewal was properly denied since plaintiff made no adequate showing that the newly asserted facts, including those contained in his affidavit, could not been offered at the time of the original motion (see, Neff v Steven Schwartzapfel, P. C., 254 AD2d 137, 138). In any event, the newly submitted material, even if given substantive consideration, would not have required a result different from that reached by the court in passing upon the original motion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Rubin and Andrias, 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 September 1, 1998, which denied plaintiff’s [193]*193motion to renew his previously denied motion to vacate the dismissal of his complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Renewal was properly denied since plaintiff made no adequate showing that the newly asserted facts, including those contained in his affidavit, could not been offered at the time of the original motion (see, Neff v Steven Schwartzapfel, P. C., 254 AD2d 137, 138). In any event, the newly submitted material, even if given substantive consideration, would not have required a result different from that reached by the court in passing upon the original motion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 192, 696 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kent-v-lincoln-metrocenter-parts-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack