From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

1009 Second Avenue v. Benenson Capital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 25, 2000
272 A.D.2d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

May 25, 2000.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner-Gans, J.), entered March 17, 2000, which, in an action to recover property damages sustained by plaintiffs' building during the construction of defendants' adjacent building, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants' motion to renew their motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Joshua L. Mallin, for plaintiffs-respondents.

Donald A. Harwood, for defendants-appellants.

Before: Williams, J.P., Tom, Wallach, Rubin, JJ.


Defendants' motion to renew was properly denied absent a reasonable excuse for their not having included the new evidence, mainly consisting of deposition testimony of their own representatives, in the original motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). Moreover, as the IAS court also held, the new evidence raises issues of credibility inappropriate for consideration on a motion for summary judgment. We have considered and rejected defendants' other arguments.

M-2857 1009 Second Avenue Associates v. Benenson Capital Co .

Motion seeking a stay of trial denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

1009 Second Avenue v. Benenson Capital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 25, 2000
272 A.D.2d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

1009 Second Avenue v. Benenson Capital

Case Details

Full title:1009 SECOND AVENUE ASSOCIATES, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. BENENSON…

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

Date published: May 25, 2000

Citations

272 A.D.2d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
710 N.Y.S.2d 241