From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

E. 26th St. v. Shaw Indus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 9, 2003
2 A.D.3d 171 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2419.

Decided December 9, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered October 9, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon renewal, reinstated the earlier-dismissed complaint against HRH Construction Corporation and granted leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Jeffrey Turkel, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

John C. Mascari, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Williams, Gonzalez, JJ.


Newly discovered facts, not available at the time of general contractor HRH's prior dismissal motion, would have altered the determination on that motion (CPLR 2221[e][2]). Plaintiff provided reasonable justification for failure to present such facts on the prior motion (CPLR 2221[e][3]), in light of recent deposition testimony disclosing that HRH had concealed the manner in which the carpeting had been damaged, and frustrated plaintiff's efforts, after its installation, to determine the cause of the damage.

We have considered HRH's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

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


Summaries of

E. 26th St. v. Shaw Indus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 9, 2003
2 A.D.3d 171 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

E. 26th St. v. Shaw Indus

Case Details

Full title:EAST 26TH STREET PARK AVENUE REALTY, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SHAW…

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

Date published: Dec 9, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 171 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
767 N.Y.S.2d 775