Robinson v. Laurent

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinson v. Laurent

205 A.D.2d 517, 614 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5984

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 6, 1994·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment [518]*518of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), entered November 13, 1992, which, upon an order granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated November 2, 1992, which denied the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents, appearing separately and filing separate briefs, are awarded one bill of costs.

We initially note that the branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for renewal was based on evidence which could have been raised at the time of the summary judgment motion. Since the plaintiff offered no excuse for her failure to present the evidence at that time, that branch of the motion was, in actuality, for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Continental Bank v J.D.S. Vendor Servs., 201 AD2d 527; Bartolo v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 198 AD2d 204).

The lack of merit to the plaintiff’s serious injury claim is patent from an examination of the medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff herself. Accordingly, the court correctly granted summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaint (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; Grier v Kuhn, 187 AD2d 559; Covington v Cinnirella, 146 AD2d 565). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment [518]*518of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), entered November 13, 1992, which, upon an order granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated November 2, 1992, which denied the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents, appearing separately and filing separate briefs, are awarded one bill of costs.

We initially note that the branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for renewal was based on evidence which could have been raised at the time of the summary judgment motion. Since the plaintiff offered no excuse for her failure to present the evidence at that time, that branch of the motion was, in actuality, for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Continental Bank v J.D.S. Vendor Servs., 201 AD2d 527; Bartolo v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 198 AD2d 204).

The lack of merit to the plaintiff’s serious injury claim is patent from an examination of the medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff herself. Accordingly, the court correctly granted summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaint (see, Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; Grier v Kuhn, 187 AD2d 559; Covington v Cinnirella, 146 AD2d 565). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Robinson v. Laurent, 205 A.D.2d 517, 614 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

205 A.D.2d 517 (Robinson v. Laurent) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related