Silverstein v. Park Lane Foods, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silverstein v. Park Lane Foods, Ltd.

201 A.D.2d 437, 609 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1618

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 437 (Silverstein v. Park Lane Foods, Ltd.) 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

Silverstein v. Park Lane Foods, Ltd., 201 A.D.2d 437, 609 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Nassau County (Marvin Segal, J.), entered on or about February 3, 1992, which inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to renew a prior order granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and upon renewal, denied the motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The newly discovered facts advanced by defendants, viewed in a light most favorable to defendants, raise triable issues of fact and indeed, as the IAS Court stated, are "compelling”. Renewal was therefore properly granted. We need not decide whether reargument was also properly granted, but do note the conflicting affidavits that were submitted on the original motion (see, Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 341).

We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find [438]*438them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Nassau County (Marvin Segal, J.), entered on or about February 3, 1992, which inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to renew a prior order granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and upon renewal, denied the motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The newly discovered facts advanced by defendants, viewed in a light most favorable to defendants, raise triable issues of fact and indeed, as the IAS Court stated, are "compelling”. Renewal was therefore properly granted. We need not decide whether reargument was also properly granted, but do note the conflicting affidavits that were submitted on the original motion (see, Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 341).

We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find [438]*438them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 437, 609 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverstein-v-park-lane-foods-ltd-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack