From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Herrera v. Matlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 10, 2004
4 A.D.3d 139 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2829N.

Decided February 10, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered July 11, 2002, which denied defendants' motion to renew a prior order granting plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' answer on the ground of spoliation of evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Neil R. Finkston, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Scott C. Watson, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.


Defendants fail to explain why they did not submit the newly submitted materials on the prior motion (CPLR 2221[e][3]). In any event, were we to consider these materials, we would adhere to our prior decision affirming the striking of defendants' answer ( 303 A.D.2d 198).

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


Summaries of

Herrera v. Matlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 10, 2004
4 A.D.3d 139 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Herrera v. Matlin

Case Details

Full title:LILLIAN HERRERA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DAVID MATLIN, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Feb 10, 2004

Citations

4 A.D.3d 139 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
771 N.Y.S.2d 347

Citing Cases

Wilmington Tr. Co. v. Metro. Life Ins.

( 141 AD2d 435, supra) and National Cleaning Contractors v Uris 380 Madison Corp. ( 84 AD2d 718, supra),…

Stryker v. Stelmak

Accordingly, the motion to renew must be denied, as the new document that plaintiff seeks to submit was…