Sanchez v. 1710 Broadway, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanchez v. 1710 Broadway, Inc.

114 A.D.3d 748, 979 N.Y.S.2d 852

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.3d 748 (Sanchez v. 1710 Broadway, Inc.) 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

Sanchez v. 1710 Broadway, Inc., 114 A.D.3d 748, 979 N.Y.S.2d 852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J), dated December 23, 2011, which denied his motion for leave to renew and reargue that branch of his prior motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answer of the defendant Unite Health Center, Inc., or, in the alternative, to direct a finding of liability against the defendant Unite Health Center, Inc., which had been denied as academic in an order of the same court dated June 12, 2009.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated December 23, 2011, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 23, 2011, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

A motion for renewal “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). “Whether to grant leave to renew is within the sound discretion of the motion court” (Biscone v JetBlue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 158, 180 [2012]; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Halls, 98 AD3d 718, 720 [2012]). Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to renew. Mastro, J.E, Austin, Sgroi and Miller, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J), dated December 23, 2011, which denied his motion for leave to renew and reargue that branch of his prior motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answer of the defendant Unite Health Center, Inc., or, in the alternative, to direct a finding of liability against the defendant Unite Health Center, Inc., which had been denied as academic in an order of the same court dated June 12, 2009.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated December 23, 2011, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 23, 2011, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

A motion for renewal “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). “Whether to grant leave to renew is within the sound discretion of the motion court” (Biscone v JetBlue Airways Corp., 103 AD3d 158, 180 [2012]; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Halls, 98 AD3d 718, 720 [2012]). Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to renew. Mastro, J.E, Austin, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.3d 748, 979 N.Y.S.2d 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-1710-broadway-inc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack