Reyes v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reyes v. City of New York

227 A.D.2d 180, 642 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4814

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Reyes v. City of New York. Read the opinion of the Court — 238 A.D.2d 563 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 7, 1996·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about February 14, 1995, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to renew and to vacate an order of the same court (Eugene Nardelli, J.), entered May 23, 1989, granting the New York City Housing Authority’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since plaintiffs failed to offer a valid excuse for failing to [181]*181submit the "new” evidence on the prior summary judgment motion, made five years earlier, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the renewal motion (Matthews v New York City Hous. Auth., 210 AD2d 205). The "new” evidence was not only available to them at the time of the earlier motion but also failed to establish proof of ownership of the property where the infant plaintiff" allegedly was injured. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about February 14, 1995, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to renew and to vacate an order of the same court (Eugene Nardelli, J.), entered May 23, 1989, granting the New York City Housing Authority’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since plaintiffs failed to offer a valid excuse for failing to [181]*181submit the "new” evidence on the prior summary judgment motion, made five years earlier, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the renewal motion (Matthews v New York City Hous. Auth., 210 AD2d 205). The "new” evidence was not only available to them at the time of the earlier motion but also failed to establish proof of ownership of the property where the infant plaintiff" allegedly was injured. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Reyes v. City of New York, 227 A.D.2d 180, 642 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

227 A.D.2d 180 (Reyes v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related