Vardi v. Greenblatt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vardi v. Greenblatt

221 A.D.2d 283, 634 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12135

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 283 (Vardi v. Greenblatt) 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

Vardi v. Greenblatt, 221 A.D.2d 283, 634 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered July 13, 1994, which affirmed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Jay Dankberg, J.), entered February 9, 1993, denying defendant’s motion to renew and reargue with respect to a judgment of the same court entered November 12, 1992, awarding plaintiff, upon a prior grant of summary judgment, the sum of $16,402.81, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s contention that the Civil Court "misapplied] relevant law by holding that the affirmation of [defendant’s] attorney was insufficient hearsay and by refusing to consider as admissible the attached documentary evidence” is without merit, since Judge Dankberg’s decision clearly indicates that defendant’s submissions were considered. Defendant never rebutted the presumption of negligence, because he failed to establish that the bailed diamond in question was one of the diamonds stolen during a burglary (Sun Yau Ko v Lincoln Sav. Bank, 99 AD2d 943, affd 62 NY2d 938). Accordingly, the Civil Court properly awarded plaintiff summary judgment for the value of the missing gem. Moreover, there was nothing "new” about the evidence belated submitted by defendant, which consisted of his cursory statement in an affidavit that easily could have been included with the original opposition papers. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered July 13, 1994, which affirmed an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Jay Dankberg, J.), entered February 9, 1993, denying defendant’s motion to renew and reargue with respect to a judgment of the same court entered November 12, 1992, awarding plaintiff, upon a prior grant of summary judgment, the sum of $16,402.81, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s contention that the Civil Court "misapplied] relevant law by holding that the affirmation of [defendant’s] attorney was insufficient hearsay and by refusing to consider as admissible the attached documentary evidence” is without merit, since Judge Dankberg’s decision clearly indicates that defendant’s submissions were considered. Defendant never rebutted the presumption of negligence, because he failed to establish that the bailed diamond in question was one of the diamonds stolen during a burglary (Sun Yau Ko v Lincoln Sav. Bank, 99 AD2d 943, affd 62 NY2d 938). Accordingly, the Civil Court properly awarded plaintiff summary judgment for the value of the missing gem. Moreover, there was nothing "new” about the evidence belated submitted by defendant, which consisted of his cursory statement in an affidavit that easily could have been included with the original opposition papers. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 283, 634 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vardi-v-greenblatt-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack