Shikula v. Cuadra Foods Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shikula v. Cuadra Foods Corp.

284 A.D.2d 526, 727 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6756

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

DecidedJune 25, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 526 (Shikula v. Cuadra Foods Corp.) 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

Shikula v. Cuadra Foods Corp., 284 A.D.2d 526, 727 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6756 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated February 17, 2000, as, upon granting his motion for leave to renew and reargue, adhered to its prior determination in an order dated October 28, 1999, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order dated February 17, 2000, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[527]*527The plaintiffs motion purported to bring to the attention of the Supreme Court an expert’s affidavit previously submitted, albeit belatedly, in unsworn form in opposition to the defendant’s original motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination since the plaintiff did not proffer a reasonable excuse for his failure to present this evidence in admissible form in opposition to the original motion (see, CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; Delvecchio v Bayside Chrysler Plymouth Jeep Eagle, 271 AD2d 636). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, 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, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated February 17, 2000, as, upon granting his motion for leave to renew and reargue, adhered to its prior determination in an order dated October 28, 1999, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order dated February 17, 2000, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

[527]*527The plaintiffs motion purported to bring to the attention of the Supreme Court an expert’s affidavit previously submitted, albeit belatedly, in unsworn form in opposition to the defendant’s original motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination since the plaintiff did not proffer a reasonable excuse for his failure to present this evidence in admissible form in opposition to the original motion (see, CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; Delvecchio v Bayside Chrysler Plymouth Jeep Eagle, 271 AD2d 636). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 526, 727 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shikula-v-cuadra-foods-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack