Solow v. Liebman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Solow v. Liebman

262 A.D.2d 633, 692 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7611

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

DecidedJune 28, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 633 (Solow v. Liebman) 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

Solow v. Liebman, 262 A.D.2d 633, 692 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7611 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for private nuisance and for injunctive relief, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated April 6, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated July 13, 1998, which denied his motion for leave to submit a supplemental affidavit.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In support of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, he made a prima facie showing that the plaintiffs claims that certain inland property had been damaged or diminished in value by the defendant’s construction were conclusory, speculative, and unsubstantiated. The expert affidavit offered in opposition to the motion was based on conclusory allegations, which were without any independent factual basis, and therefore insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, Aghabi v Sebro, 256 AD2d 287; Young v Fleary, 226 AD2d 454).

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s application for leave to submit a [634]*634supplemental affidavit almost four months after the return date of the motion (see, CPLR 2214; Risucci v Zeal Mgt. Corp., 258 AD2d 512; Romeo v Ben-Soph Food Corp., 146 AD2d 688). S. Miller, J. P., Joy, H. Miller and Feuerstein, 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 private nuisance and for injunctive relief, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated April 6, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) an order of the same court, dated July 13, 1998, which denied his motion for leave to submit a supplemental affidavit.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In support of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, he made a prima facie showing that the plaintiffs claims that certain inland property had been damaged or diminished in value by the defendant’s construction were conclusory, speculative, and unsubstantiated. The expert affidavit offered in opposition to the motion was based on conclusory allegations, which were without any independent factual basis, and therefore insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment (see, Aghabi v Sebro, 256 AD2d 287; Young v Fleary, 226 AD2d 454).

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s application for leave to submit a [634]*634supplemental affidavit almost four months after the return date of the motion (see, CPLR 2214; Risucci v Zeal Mgt. Corp., 258 AD2d 512; Romeo v Ben-Soph Food Corp., 146 AD2d 688). S. Miller, J. P., Joy, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 633, 692 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solow-v-liebman-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack