Osborne v. Evans

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Osborne v. Evans

47 A.D.3d 904, 850 N.Y.S.2d 576

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 A.D.3d 904 (Osborne v. Evans) 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

Osborne v. Evans, 47 A.D.3d 904, 850 N.Y.S.2d 576 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to enforce an easement over real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered April 19, 2006, which denied her motion for leave to renew her opposition to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment which was granted by order of the same court dated October 12, 2004.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While the defendant presented new evidence in support of her motion for leave to renew, a motion for leave to renew should be [905]*905denied unless the moving party offers a reasonable justification as to why the new facts were not submitted on the prior motion. Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion, as the justification offered by the defendant was not reasonable (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]; Perez v Muller Mach. Co., Inc., 19 AD3d 468, 469 [2005]; Baker v Monarch Life Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 630 [2004]). Ritter, J.P., Florio, McCarthy and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to enforce an easement over real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered April 19, 2006, which denied her motion for leave to renew her opposition to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment which was granted by order of the same court dated October 12, 2004.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While the defendant presented new evidence in support of her motion for leave to renew, a motion for leave to renew should be [905]*905denied unless the moving party offers a reasonable justification as to why the new facts were not submitted on the prior motion. Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion, as the justification offered by the defendant was not reasonable (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]; Perez v Muller Mach. Co., Inc., 19 AD3d 468, 469 [2005]; Baker v Monarch Life Ins. Co., 12 AD3d 630 [2004]). Ritter, J.P., Florio, McCarthy and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 904, 850 N.Y.S.2d 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborne-v-evans-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack