From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sheridan v. Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 13, 2008
56 A.D.3d 305 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 4554.

November 13, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered January 3, 2008, which granted plaintiffs motion for reargument, and, upon reargument, denied defendants' previously granted motion to dismiss the complaint for plaintiffs failure to comply with discovery, and reinstated the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Molod Spitz DeSantis, P.C., New York (Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas M. Smith, New York, for Karen Sheridan, respondent.

Thomas D. Hughes, New York (David D. Hess of counsel), for 625 Management Committee, Sheila Daley and 625 Madison Associates, L.P., respondents.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Nardelli and Buckley, JJ.


The motion court providently exercised its discretion in granting reargument and reinstating the complaint. Plaintiffs moving papers clarified certain facts relating to the extent of her compliance with discovery, including the court's directives concerning nonparty witnesses and the filing of a note of issue, that her prior submissions and opposition to defendants' motion had obscured ( see Rodney v New York Pyrotechnic Prods. Co., 112 AD2d 410). Even if plaintiffs motion cannot be said to fall precisely within the category of either renewal or reargument, the court's disposition was well within the exercise of its discretion ( see Sciascia v Nevins, 130 AD2d 649, 650).

We have considered appellant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Sheridan v. Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 13, 2008
56 A.D.3d 305 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Sheridan v. Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:KAREN SHERIDAN, Respondent, v. VERY, LTD., Doing Business as Au BAR…

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

Date published: Nov 13, 2008

Citations

56 A.D.3d 305 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 8548
867 N.Y.S.2d 88

Citing Cases

W 108 Dev. v. Nour Found.

Pursuant to CPLR §2221(d), a motion for leave to reargue must be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly…

Tyagi v. Gadella

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ entire motion is properly characterized as one for reargument (seeFoley v. Roche, 68…