Zelaya v. Reinoso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zelaya v. Reinoso

250 A.D.2d 672, 672 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5526

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

DecidedMay 11, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 672 (Zelaya v. Reinoso) 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

Zelaya v. Reinoso, 250 A.D.2d 672, 672 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Clifford M. Soncini and Long Island Yellow Transportation Corp. appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated May 27, 1997, as (1) granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment against them, and (2) granted the cross motion of the defendants Clifford M. Soncini and Long Island Yellow Transportation Corp. for, in effect, reargument of the plaintiffs’ motion, inter alia, to strike the answer of Clifford M. Soncini, and, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Since the appellants failed to show an adequate basis to support the cross motion, which was, in effect, for reargument, the court properly adhered to its prior determination (see, CPLR 2221). Furthermore, since the appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the evidence presented in support of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, the court properly granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Clifford M. Soncini and Long Island Yellow Transportation Corp. appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated May 27, 1997, as (1) granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment against them, and (2) granted the cross motion of the defendants Clifford M. Soncini and Long Island Yellow Transportation Corp. for, in effect, reargument of the plaintiffs’ motion, inter alia, to strike the answer of Clifford M. Soncini, and, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Since the appellants failed to show an adequate basis to support the cross motion, which was, in effect, for reargument, the court properly adhered to its prior determination (see, CPLR 2221). Furthermore, since the appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the evidence presented in support of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, the court properly granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 672, 672 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zelaya-v-reinoso-nyappdiv-1998.