From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Diorio v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 28, 1994
202 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 28, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from and the plaintiffs' renewed motion is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment entered August 10, 1992, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs, payable by the plaintiff.

We find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in treating the plaintiff's motion, denominated as one for reargument, as one for renewal of the motion of the defendants City of New York and Doubleday Sports, Inc., for summary judgment, and upon renewal, denying summary judgment to those defendants. The record indicates that the plaintiff was aware of the facts upon which the motion to renew was based at the time of the original motion for summary judgment and he offered no excuse as to why these facts were not supplied in the papers submitted in opposition to the original motion (see, Caffee v. Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 352). Accordingly, the motion was in the nature of reargument (see, Huttner v. McDaid, 151 A.D.2d 547; Mackey v. Mackey, 151 A.D.2d 554). Even if we were to conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in effectively granting reargument, we would find that the original determination on the prior motion should have been adhered to because the plaintiff failed to allege that the Supreme Court overlooked or misapprehended facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law (see, Pro Brokerage v. Home Ins. Co., 99 A.D.2d 971).

The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to defendant Harry M. Stevens, Inc. It presented prima facie evidence of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and the plaintiff failed to present any evidence in admissible form to establish the existence of material issues of fact. Specifically, the plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the defendant Harry M. Stevens, Inc., had any duty to clean the exit ramps at Shea Stadium. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Diorio v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 28, 1994
202 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Diorio v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD A. DIORIO, JR., Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants…

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

Date published: Mar 28, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
609 N.Y.S.2d 304

Citing Cases

Ydra, LLC v. Mitchell

In essence, the purpose of a motion for leave to reargue is to allow a party to either demonstrate that the…

Wright v. Stam

CPLR 2221(f) provides that a “combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew shall identify…