Opinion
2003-02902.
Decided April 19, 2004.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated March 21, 2003, which denied their motion for leave to renew the defendant's prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Barbara Lee Ford, Garden City, N.Y., for appellants.
Douglas Kaplan, Merrick, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to renew the prior summary judgment motion, as it was based on evidence that could have been discovered earlier with due diligence ( see CPLR 2221[e]; Dawkins v. Long Is. R.R., 302 A.D.2d 349, 350; Ford v. Lasky, 300 A.D.2d 536, 537). Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to offer a justifiable excuse for the eight-month delay in making the motion ( see Cole-Hatchard v. Grand Union, 270 A.D.2d 447, 448).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit ( see Martinez v. City of New York, 292 A.D.2d 349).
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.
DECISION ORDER ON MOTION
Motion by the respondent on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 21, 2003, to strike Point III of the appellants' brief on the ground that it raises issues not properly before this court. By decision and order on motion of this court dated March 3, 2004, the motion was referred to the Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission of the appeal.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied in light of the determination of the appeal ( see Christ v. Solomon, A.D.3d [decided herewith]).
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.