Silver v. Lion Equities

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silver v. Lion Equities

244 A.D.2d 401, 665 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11263

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 401 (Silver v. Lion Equities) 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

Silver v. Lion Equities, 244 A.D.2d 401, 665 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), rendered August 28, 1996, which denied their motion for leave to renew a prior motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiff Hilary Silver is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

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

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the motion for leave to renew. Although it is within the court’s discretion to grant renewal upon facts which were known to the movant at the time of the original motion (see, Strong v Brookhaven Mem. Med. Ctr., 240 AD2d 726; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266; Karlin v [402]*402Bridges, 172 AD2d 644), the additional facts contained in an attorney’s affidavit submitted in support of the motion for leave to renew did not warrant granting the motion to renew in the interest of justice. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Florio, 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 breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), rendered August 28, 1996, which denied their motion for leave to renew a prior motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiff Hilary Silver is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

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

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the motion for leave to renew. Although it is within the court’s discretion to grant renewal upon facts which were known to the movant at the time of the original motion (see, Strong v Brookhaven Mem. Med. Ctr., 240 AD2d 726; Friedman v U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 AD2d 266; Karlin v [402]*402Bridges, 172 AD2d 644), the additional facts contained in an attorney’s affidavit submitted in support of the motion for leave to renew did not warrant granting the motion to renew in the interest of justice. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 401, 665 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silver-v-lion-equities-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack