Matter of Spiegel v. Kempner

2016 NY Slip Op 8316, 145 A.D.3d 505, 43 N.Y.S.3d 306
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 8, 2016
Docket2440N 114420/11
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8316 (Matter of Spiegel v. Kempner) 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
Matter of Spiegel v. Kempner, 2016 NY Slip Op 8316, 145 A.D.3d 505, 43 N.Y.S.3d 306 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered June 10, 2015, which denied plaintiff’s motion to remove the case from Civil Court to Supreme Court and, upon removal, to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*506 This is plaintiff’s second motion to remove the action from Civil Court to Supreme Court. Her first was denied in January 2012, on the ground that she had not made a sufficient showing on the merits of her case to warrant the relief requested. On this second motion, plaintiff again failed to show that there was “some reasonable basis” for her claim for increased damages or indeed that the damages can be attributed to negligence on defendant’s part (Matter of Victor V de Maziroff, 275 App Div 69, 75 [1st Dept 1949], affd 300 NY 686 [1950]; see Platt v Flesher, 115 AD3d 468 [1st Dept 2014]).

Nor did plaintiff establish her right to amend the complaint, since she did not proffer a reasonable excuse for her failure to make her second motion until more than three years after the first one was denied and nearly nine years after the flooding incident in question (see Oil Heat Inst. of Long Is. Ins. Trust v RMTS Assoc., 4 AD3d 290, 293-294 [1st Dept 2004]). Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, defendant has been hindered in the preparation of his case as a result of her delay (see Loomis v Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 NY2d 18, 23-24 [1981]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Andrias and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Related

Pecora v. Pecora
2022 NY Slip Op 02876 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 NY Slip Op 8316, 145 A.D.3d 505, 43 N.Y.S.3d 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-spiegel-v-kempner-nyappdiv-2016.