Tavarez v. Herrasme

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tavarez v. Herrasme

2017 NY Slip Op 2148, 148 A.D.3d 576, 48 N.Y.S.3d 602

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

DecidedMarch 23, 2017

Docket3488 305639/13

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2148 (Tavarez v. Herrasme) 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

Tavarez v. Herrasme, 2017 NY Slip Op 2148, 148 A.D.3d 576, 48 N.Y.S.3d 602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Doris M. Gonzalez, J.), entered July 11, 2016, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a *577 motor vehicle accident, denied defendants’ motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied defendants’ motion to renew plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, which was previously granted by Supreme Court and later affirmed by this Court (see 140 AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2016]). There is nothing in plaintiff’s deposition, which was taken after he was granted summary judgment, that constitutes new noncumulative facts that would warrant granting renewal (see Varela v Clark, 134 AD3d 925 [2d Dept 2015]; CPLR 2221 [e]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Mazzarelli, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Doris M. Gonzalez, J.), entered July 11, 2016, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a *577 motor vehicle accident, denied defendants’ motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied defendants’ motion to renew plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, which was previously granted by Supreme Court and later affirmed by this Court (see 140 AD3d 453 [1st Dept 2016]). There is nothing in plaintiff’s deposition, which was taken after he was granted summary judgment, that constitutes new noncumulative facts that would warrant granting renewal (see Varela v Clark, 134 AD3d 925 [2d Dept 2015]; CPLR 2221 [e]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Mazzarelli, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2148, 148 A.D.3d 576, 48 N.Y.S.3d 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tavarez-v-herrasme-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack