Mayer v. McBrunigan Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mayer v. McBrunigan Construction Corp.

123 A.D.2d 606, 506 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60757

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 123 A.D.2d 606 (Mayer v. McBrunigan Construction Corp.) 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

Mayer v. McBrunigan Construction Corp., 123 A.D.2d 606, 506 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover moneys due on a mortgage note, and to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Dachenhausen, J.), dated April 30, 1985, which denied their motion to renew the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and their cross motion for leave to amend their answer.

Order affirmed, with costs.

"Leave to renew should be denied unless the moving party offers a reasonable excuse as to why the additional facts were not submitted on the original application” (Caffee v Arnold, 104 AD2d 352; Teal v Place, 85 AD2d 788). No such reasonable excuse was offered at bar, where the additional evidence consisted for the most part of public records and information within the knowledge of the movants at the time of the original motion (see, Lo Breglio v Marks, 105 AD2d 621, affd [607]*60765 NY2d 620; Silinsky v State-Wide Ins. Co., 30 AD2d 1). Thus Special Term did not err in denying the defendants’ motion to renew. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover moneys due on a mortgage note, and to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Dachenhausen, J.), dated April 30, 1985, which denied their motion to renew the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and their cross motion for leave to amend their answer.

Order affirmed, with costs.

"Leave to renew should be denied unless the moving party offers a reasonable excuse as to why the additional facts were not submitted on the original application” (Caffee v Arnold, 104 AD2d 352; Teal v Place, 85 AD2d 788). No such reasonable excuse was offered at bar, where the additional evidence consisted for the most part of public records and information within the knowledge of the movants at the time of the original motion (see, Lo Breglio v Marks, 105 AD2d 621, affd [607]*60765 NY2d 620; Silinsky v State-Wide Ins. Co., 30 AD2d 1). Thus Special Term did not err in denying the defendants’ motion to renew. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 606, 506 N.Y.S.2d 770, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayer-v-mcbrunigan-construction-corp-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack