From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taub v. Art Students League

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 30, 2009
63 A.D.3d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 947.

June 30, 2009.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered June 9, 2008, which granted plaintiffs motion to renew (denominated by the court as one to reargue) a prior order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and, upon renewal, adhered to the prior order, deemed to have denied renewal, and, so considered, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Edward T. Chase, Mount Vernon, for appellant.

Zichello McIntyre, LLP, New York (Ann Teresa McIntyre of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.


While the motion court incorrectly denominated plaintiffs motion as one to reargue, it clearly treated it as one to renew, describing the evidentiary material submitted by plaintiff on the motion, a witness statement, and rejecting it for lack of an explanation why it was not submitted on defendants' prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of evidence of, inter alia, the cause of plaintiffs fall ( see CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]; Dupont v Joedon Co., 107 AD2d 369, 373). In any event, the new evidence, however, should be rejected for failure to show due diligence in attempting to obtain the statement before the submission of the prior motion ( see Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328, 328-329, lv denied 88 NY2d 815; Elson v Defren, 283 AD2d 109, 113). The hearsay statement of plaintiffs attorney describing his investigator's efforts to locate the witness lacks probative value. Even if we were to accept the attorney's statement, we would find that the investigator's efforts fell short of due diligence. Moreover, were we to accept the witness statement, it would not change the prior determination that there is no evidence probative of what caused plaintiff to trip and fall (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). The witness does not identify plaintiff as the person who fell, stating only that he saw "a woman" fall, or specify when he saw the woman fall, stating only that it happened in the "fall of 2003."


Summaries of

Taub v. Art Students League

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 30, 2009
63 A.D.3d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Taub v. Art Students League

Case Details

Full title:NURI TAUB, Appellant, v. THE ART STUDENTS LEAGUE OF NEW YORK, Defendant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 30, 2009

Citations

63 A.D.3d 630 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 5385
882 N.Y.S.2d 94

Citing Cases

Vasquez v. Beckford

Plaintiff failed to provide evidence in admissible form, relying on the police accident report and the…

Tsavaris v. Tsavaris

The court denies the motion to renew based on the rental of the basement apartment because Arthur's excuse…