Michael Stachnik Enterprises, Inc. v. Hereford Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Michael Stachnik Enterprises, Inc. v. Hereford Development Corp.

38 A.D.3d 859, 831 N.Y.S.2d 340

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 859 (Michael Stachnik Enterprises, Inc. v. Hereford Development 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

Michael Stachnik Enterprises, Inc. v. Hereford Development Corp., 38 A.D.3d 859, 831 N.Y.S.2d 340 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated April 17, 2006, as denied its motion for leave to renew its prior motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The new facts presented by the plaintiff on its motion for leave to renew were insufficient to change the outcome of the court’s prior determination denying the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Mountains Realty Corp. v Gelbelman, 29 AD3d 874, 875 [2006]; Lawson v Aspen Ford, Inc., 15 AD3d 628, 630 [2005]; Steinberg v Steinberg, 15 AD3d 388, 389 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew. Crane, J.P., Skelos, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated April 17, 2006, as denied its motion for leave to renew its prior motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The new facts presented by the plaintiff on its motion for leave to renew were insufficient to change the outcome of the court’s prior determination denying the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Mountains Realty Corp. v Gelbelman, 29 AD3d 874, 875 [2006]; Lawson v Aspen Ford, Inc., 15 AD3d 628, 630 [2005]; Steinberg v Steinberg, 15 AD3d 388, 389 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew. Crane, J.P., Skelos, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 859, 831 N.Y.S.2d 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-stachnik-enterprises-inc-v-hereford-development-corp-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack