You are here: / / IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN...
, ,

IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REOPEN THE INQUEST ON DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined it was an abuse of discretion to deny plaintiff’s motion to reopen the inquest on damages. Although the motion was untimely, there was no prejudice to the defendants:

… [T]he Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was, in effect, to reopen the inquest in order to permit the plaintiff to submit what the court had indicated was crucial evidence … . Moreover, there was no evidence that the defendants would be prejudiced … . Although the plaintiff’s motion was not made in a timely fashion, a factor which ordinarily weighs against granting such relief … , the record here reflects that the delay may have been due in part to the plaintiff’s confusion regarding the court’s directive as to how to proceed … . Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v Islam, 2023 NY Slip Op 05119, Second Dept 10-11-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff sought to reopen the inquest on damages to present crucial evidence which had been requested by the judge. Although the request was untimely, there was no prejudice to the defendants. It was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion.

 

You might also like
Unambiguous Release Standing Alone Warrants Summary Judgment
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
Pleading Requirements for Unjust Enrichment and Fraud Not Met
PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN WAS STRUCK CROSSING THE STREET WHERE THERE WAS NO CROSSWALK, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER FAILED TO SEE WHAT SHE SHOULD HAVE SEEN (SECOND DEPT).
THE TIP OF PLAINTIFF THIRD-GRADER’S FINGER WAS SEVERED WHEN A DOOR IN THE SCHOOL BUILDING SLAMMED SHUT; THE DEFENDANT-SCHOOL’S (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S [DOE’S]) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE DOOR WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, THE SCHOOL HAD NO NOTICE OF A PROBLEM WITH THE DOOR, SUPERVISION COULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED THE ACCIDENT, AND NYC IS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT ON SCHOOL (DOE) PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A STOP SIGN AT AN ACCIDENT-PRONE INTERSECTION.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT... THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE...