Tri-State Consumer Insurance v. Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tri-State Consumer Insurance v. Singh

297 A.D.2d 349, 746 N.Y.2d 399, 746 N.Y.S.2d 399, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7978

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

DecidedAugust 19, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 349 (Tri-State Consumer Insurance v. Singh) 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

Tri-State Consumer Insurance v. Singh, 297 A.D.2d 349, 746 N.Y.2d 399, 746 N.Y.S.2d 399, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7978 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for leave to renew, as it offered no reasonable excuse as to why the evidence submitted with the motion was not previously submitted in opposition to the petition (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Matter of Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v Nevelus, 292 AD2d 381; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Taddeo, 285 AD2d 503). Additionally, even if the appellant’s excuse was reasonable, it failed to explain the nearly five-month delay in moving to renew (see Cole-Hatchard v Grand Union, 270 AD2d 447; Dankner v Szurzan & Dorf, 226 AD2d 669; Elgem, Inc. v National Gypsum, 192 AD2d 636). Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for leave to renew, as it offered no reasonable excuse as to why the evidence submitted with the motion was not previously submitted in opposition to the petition (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Matter of Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v Nevelus, 292 AD2d 381; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Taddeo, 285 AD2d 503). Additionally, even if the appellant’s excuse was reasonable, it failed to explain the nearly five-month delay in moving to renew (see Cole-Hatchard v Grand Union, 270 AD2d 447; Dankner v Szurzan & Dorf, 226 AD2d 669; Elgem, Inc. v National Gypsum, 192 AD2d 636). Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, Friedmann, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 349, 746 N.Y.2d 399, 746 N.Y.S.2d 399, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tri-state-consumer-insurance-v-singh-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack