Pelaez v. Seide

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pelaez v. Seide

78 A.D.3d 675, 909 N.Y.S.2d 664

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

DecidedNovember 3, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.3d 675 (Pelaez v. Seide) 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

Pelaez v. Seide, 78 A.D.3d 675, 909 N.Y.S.2d 664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Laura Seide and Gary Seide appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O’Rourke, J.), dated July 22, 2009, which denied their motion for leave to renew their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, which had been determined in an order dated January 23, 2007, or, in the alternative, to compel the production of certain documents filed in the divorce proceeding of the defendant Peter Glass.

Ordered that the order dated July 22, 2009, is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for leave to renew their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, since the new evidence they submitted would not have warranted granting the summary judgment motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Khan v Nelson, 68 AD3d 1062 [2009]).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to compel the production of certain documents filed in the divorce proceeding of the defendant Peter Glass, as they failed to demonstrate that access to those documents would result in the discovery of admissible or relevant evidence (see CPLR 3101 [a]; DeStrange v Lind, 277 AD2d 344, 345 [2000]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Laura Seide and Gary Seide appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O’Rourke, J.), dated July 22, 2009, which denied their motion for leave to renew their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, which had been determined in an order dated January 23, 2007, or, in the alternative, to compel the production of certain documents filed in the divorce proceeding of the defendant Peter Glass.

Ordered that the order dated July 22, 2009, is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellants’ motion which was for leave to renew their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, since the new evidence they submitted would not have warranted granting the summary judgment motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Khan v Nelson, 68 AD3d 1062 [2009]).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to compel the production of certain documents filed in the divorce proceeding of the defendant Peter Glass, as they failed to demonstrate that access to those documents would result in the discovery of admissible or relevant evidence (see CPLR 3101 [a]; DeStrange v Lind, 277 AD2d 344, 345 [2000]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 675, 909 N.Y.S.2d 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pelaez-v-seide-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack