From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kartiganer Associates v. Town of New Windsor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 6, 1987
132 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

July 6, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Delaney, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record reveals that the plaintiff submitted only an affidavit of an attorney without personal knowledge of the facts in response to the Wehran defendants' motion for summary judgment. It is clear that unsubstantiated and conclusory allegations of fact by an attorney lacking personal knowledge are patently insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment; hence, the dismissal of the instant claims as against the Wehran defendants was proper (see, David Graubart, Inc. v. Bank Leumi Trust Co., 48 N.Y.2d 554; Grieshaber v. City of New Rochelle, 113 A.D.2d 821, appeal dismissed 66 N.Y.2d 1035; Sheahan v. County of Suffolk, 109 A.D.2d 832). Moreover, no documentary evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact accompanied the attorney's affidavit (see generally, Olan v. Farrell Lines, 64 N.Y.2d 1092; Weingarten v. Marcus, 118 A.D.2d 640), nor was any reasonable explanation for the absence of factual evidence set forth by the plaintiff (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).

The plaintiff's reliance upon the legal arguments and alleged new evidence presented in support of its motion for reargument of the Wehran defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, which was denied in an order of the same court dated August 11, 1986, is unavailing, since that motion alleged no new or additional relevant facts and was, in reality, solely one for reargument (see, Zebrowski v. Trustees of Town of Brookhaven, 128 A.D.2d 704). Since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, Wright v. General Motors Corp., 96 A.D.2d 510), the plaintiff's contentions raised in that motion are not properly before this court (see, Zebrowski v. Trustees of Town of Brookhaven, supra; Savino v. Nassau Hosp., 127 A.D.2d 579).

Finally, since the plaintiff at no point alleged any specific instance of misconduct on the part of the Wehran defendants subsequent to the alleged breach of the contract in April 1978, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the claims asserted in the fifth and sixth causes of action are barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations (see, Kartiganer Assocs. v Town of New Windsor, 108 A.D.2d 898, appeal dismissed 65 N.Y.2d 925). Rubin, J.P., Kooper, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kartiganer Associates v. Town of New Windsor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 6, 1987
132 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Kartiganer Associates v. Town of New Windsor

Case Details

Full title:KARTIGANER ASSOCIATES, P.C., Appellant, v. TOWN OF NEW WINDSOR et al.…

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

Date published: Jul 6, 1987

Citations

132 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr.

"[E]xpert opinion evidence from a party defendant which bears a strong factual relationship to the alleged…

Stojowski v. Fair Oaks Development Corp.

As a result of the plaintiff's failure to timely serve a bill of particulars, as directed by a conditional…