You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

NEW INFORMATION IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE COURT.

The Second Department, in finding plaintiff bank had established standing to bring the foreclosure action, explained when a court may consider new information in a reply affidavit (re: a motion for summary judgment):

… [I]t was not error for the Supreme Court to consider the reply affidavit, which was submitted in reply to the appellant’s opposition. A party moving for summary judgment generally cannot meet its prima facie burden by submitting evidence for the first time in reply … . However, there are exceptions to this general rule, including when the evidence is submitted in response to allegations raised for the first time in the opposition papers or when the other party is given an opportunity to respond to the reply papers… . Further, “[t]he function of reply papers is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant” … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly considered the reply affidavit because the affidavit was offered in response to the appellant’s allegation in opposition to the motion that the plaintiff never had possession of the note, and merely clarified the plaintiff’s initial submissions as to its possession of the note at the time of commencement … . Central Mtge. Co. v Jahnsen, 2017 NY Slip Op 03474, 2nd Dept 5-3-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEW INFORMATION IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE COURT)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NEW INFORMATION IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE COURT)/REPLY PAPERS (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FORECLOSURE, NEW INFORMATION IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE COURT)/FORECLOSURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, NEW INFORMATION IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE COURT)

CRITERIA FOR DISCLOSURE OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOR FORENSIC TESTING EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to compel disclosure original documents in this medical malpractice action for forensic analysis was properly denied (albeit for the wrong reason). The court explained the deficiencies in the plaintiff’s motion:

As to the motion to produce original records for forensic analysis, the plaintiff failed to establish that the proposed testing was not destructive, and failed to adequately indicate the extent to which the testing would alter or destroy the original records … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to establish adequate justification for the testing … . Freely v Donnenfeld, 2017 NY Slip Op 03490, 2nd Dept 5-3-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR DISCLOSURE OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOR FORENSIC TESTING EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)/DISCLOSURE (ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, CRITERIA FOR DISCLOSURE OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOR FORENSIC TESTING EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)/FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, CRITERIA FOR DISCLOSURE OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOR FORENSIC TESTING EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE)

, , , ,

DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant doctor’s (Kolli’s) credentialing file was privileged and therefore not discoverable. The discovery request for the doctor’s personnel file was too broad; whether any parts of it are privileged must be determined document by document:

​

Concerning the discoverability of Dr. Kolli’s credentialing file, we note that such files “fall squarely within the materials that are made confidential by Education Law § 6527 (3) and article 28 of the Public Health Law”… . That privilege shields from disclosure ” the proceedings [and] the records relating to performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function or participation in a medical . . . malpractice prevention program’ ” .. . Here, defendants established that the credentialing file was “generated in connection with a quality assurance review function pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3) or a malpractice prevention program pursuant to [article 28 of the] Public Health Law” … . We therefore conclude that the credentialing file is privileged and that the court improperly ordered defendants to disclose it… .

Although there is an exception to the privilege, the exception is limited to those statements made by a doctor to his or her employer-hospital concerning the subject matter of a malpractice action and pursuant to the hospital’s quality-control inquiry into the incident underlying that action … . Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, that exception does not apply here because the injury underlying this action was never the subject of such an inquiry. Jousma v Kolli, 2017 NY Slip Op 03308, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DISCOVERY, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/PRIVILEGE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/DISCOVERY (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/CREDENTIALING FILE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)/PERSONNEL FILE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DISCOVERY, PRIVILEGE, DOCTOR’S CREDENTIALING FILE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE, WHETHER CONTENTS OF PERSONNEL FILE ARE PRIVILEGED MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT)

,

FRAUD ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING MUST BE ADDRESSED BY A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT IN A SECOND PLENARY ACTION.

The Fourth Department determined that a second plenary action for fraud allegedly committed in a foreclosure proceeding is not proper. The proper remedy is a motion to vacate the judgment in the foreclosure proceeding:

​

“To the extent that the [amended] complaint alleged fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party committed during the course of the prior litigation, plaintiff[s’] sole remedy was a motion to vacate the court’s prior order pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3). A litigant’s remedy for alleged fraud in the course of a legal proceeding lies exclusively in that lawsuit itself, i.e., by moving pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the [judgment] due to its fraudulent procurement, not a second plenary action collaterally attacking the” judgment … .

Contrary to plaintiffs’ further contention, this case does not fit within the exception … which applies when the alleged fraud or perjury “is merely a means to the accomplishment of a larger fraudulent scheme,” i.e., one “greater in scope than [that] in the prior proceeding” … .  MAA-Sharda, Inc. v First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 03290, 4th Dept 4-28-17

FRAUD (FRAUD ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING MUST BE ADDRESSED BY A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT IN A SECOND PLENARY ACTION)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FRAUD ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING MUST BE ADDRESSED BY A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT IN A SECOND PLENARY ACTION)

, ,

JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE.

The Fourth Department, in an original Article 78 proceeding, determined the judge was prohibited from imposing on defendant a sentence of probation. Defendant was sentenced to 30 days in jail. Outside the defendant’s presence the sentencing judge signed an order imposing a five-year probationary period and defendant agreed to the order by signing it in jail:

​

While a court possesses the inherent authority to correct a mistake or error in a criminal defendant’s sentence … , the process by which a court corrects such an error is by resentencing the defendant … , which must be done in the defendant’s presence (see CPL 380.40 [1]). We thus conclude that the Judge erred in imposing an additional component to the sentence outside of petitioner’s presence …

We further conclude that petitioner cannot now be resentenced. It is well settled that, “where a defendant is released from custody and returns to the community after serving the period of incarceration that was ordered by the sentencing court, and the time to appeal the sentence has expired or the appeal has been finally determined,’ a legitimate expectation of the original sentence’s finality arises and double jeopardy precludes the modification of that sentence to include a period of” probation … . Here, ,,, petitioner has completed serving the period of incarceration and has been released from custody. Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal, and the time within which to do so has expired … . Although petitioner, as of this writing, could still move for an extension of time to take an appeal … , he cannot be forced to do so. We thus conclude that petitioner’s sentence is “beyond the court’s authority,” and an additional component to that sentence cannot be imposed … . Matter of Brandon v Doran, 2017 NY Slip Op 03371, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARTICLE 78, PROHIBITION, CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/JUDGES (ARTICLE 78, PROHIBITION, CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)/SENTENCING (JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE)

,

SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a concurrence and a two-justice dissent, determined the action by the respondent school district (re: terminating certain health insurance available to retirees) was not quasi-legislative. Therefore the four-month statute of limitations for petitioners’ Article 78 contesting the school district’s action did not start to run upon the mailing of the undated notification letter. The respondents, therefore, did not demonstrate the Article 78 proceeding was barred by the statute of limitations:

​

A quasi-legislative-type administrative determination is one having an impact far beyond the immediate parties at the administrative stage… . Thus, where a quasi-legislative determination is challenged, “actual notice of the challenged determination is not required in order to start the statute of limitations clock” … . The policy underlying the rule is that actual notice to the general public is not practicable … . Instead, the statute of limitations begins to run once the administrative agency’s quasi-legislative determination of the issue becomes “readily ascertainable” to the complaining party… .

On the other hand, where the public at large is not impacted by a determination, actual notice, commonly in the form of receipt of a letter or other writing containing the final and binding determination, is required to commence the statute of limitations … . * * *

​

… [I]nasmuch as respondents, in our view, failed to meet their burden to establish when the four-month statute of limitations commenced, the burden did not shift to petitioners to establish any particular date of individual receipt of the undated letter. In any event, respondents failed to establish any dates of receipt by petitioners in their moving papers. Matter of Knavel v West Seneca Cent. Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 03416, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION)/QUASI-LEGISLATIVE ACTION (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ARTICLE 78, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION)/ARTICLE 78 (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, (SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (ARTICLE 78, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION)

, ,

HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department, in affirming summary judgment for defendant in this dog bite case, noted that hearsay, standing alone, is insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. Defendant (Nicole) demonstrated she had no knowledge the dog had vicious propensities. In response, plaintiff presented only hearsay:

​

Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, through Nicole’s deposition testimony, that she was not aware, nor should she have been aware, that the dog had ever bitten anyone or exhibited any aggressive behavior … . Nicole testified that she had purchased the dog when it was two months old, the dog had undergone obedience training, and the dog had never attacked or bitten anyone before the incident at issue.

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. The only evidence offered by the plaintiff to demonstrate that, prior to this incident, the dog had exhibited fierce or hostile tendencies was hearsay, which is insufficient, on its own, to bar summary judgment … . Ciliotta v Ranieri, 2017 NY Slip Op 03150, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/DOG BITE  (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/HEARSAY (SUMMARY JUDGMENT,  HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED)

,

MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend his bill of particulars to reflect a different date for the injury allegedly caused by defendant’s employees during a carpet delivery should not have been granted. The motion was made on the eve of trial more than four years after the action was commenced and after plaintiff had repeatedly asserted the date during discovery. It turned out that no delivery was made by defendant on the date alleged in the pleadings:

​

“Generally, [i]n the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'”… . Where, however, the application for leave to amend is made long after the action has been certified for trial, judicial discretion in allowing such amendments should be discreet, circumspect, prudent, and cautious… . “Moreover, when . . . leave is sought on the eve of trial, judicial discretion should be exercised sparingly” … .

Here, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend his bill of particulars more than four years after the action was commenced, and almost a year after the matter was stricken from the trial calendar. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the bill of particulars, as the defendant demonstrated that it would suffer significant prejudice as a result of the unexplained delay … . Tabak v Shaw Indus., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03213, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/NEGLIGENCE  (MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/BILL OF PARTICULARS, MOTION TO AMEND  (NEGLIGENCE, MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the criteria for issuance of a preliminary injunction were not met in this dispute between landlord and tenant. The court further noted that a preliminary injunction is designed to preserve the status quo and ordering the landlord to accept a reduced rent while the action was pending was not proper:

​

… [W]e find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff preliminary injunctive relief staying termination of the lease, and in further directing the plaintiff to pay rent in the reduced sum of $10,000 per month in lieu of the full amount of rent due under the lease. Although the plaintiff may ultimately be successful on the merits, it failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that the balance of the equities favor an injunction since its alleged damages are compensable in money damages and capable of calculation … . Moreover, the plaintiff’s vague and conclusory allegations regarding its inability to pay the full rent under the lease were insufficient to establish irreparable injury … . Furthermore, the court went beyond preserving the status quo, which is the essence of a preliminary injunction, and impermissibly rewrote the terms of the lease by directing that the plaintiff be permitted to pay only part of the rent due under the lease while it continued to occupy the premises … . Soundview Cinemas, Inc. v AC I Soundview, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03209, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER)/LANDLORD-TENANT (CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER)/PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (LANDLORD-TENANT, CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NOT MET, ALLOWING PAYMENT OF REDUCED RENT DURING THE PENDING LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTE WAS IMPROPER)

, ,

MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED.

​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to renew in this rear-end collision case should not have been deemed a motion to reargue and denied. Plaintiff presented new evidence which was not available at the time the original motion was heard. The new evidence was sufficient to defeat the summary judgment motion:

​

The new evidence included a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which had not been submitted to the court on the prior motion, as her deposition had not been completed until after the prior motion had been decided. Therefore, the motion was correctly denominated by the defendant as one for leave to renew his opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, this new evidence raised triable issues of fact as to the plaintiff’s comparative fault. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to change the court’s prior determination, and should have resulted in the court, upon renewal, denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Donovan v Rizzo, 2017 NY Slip Op 03154, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED)/RENEW, MOTION TO MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED)/REARGUE, MOTION TO  (MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED)

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy