From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Michael v. Hereford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 27, 2007
38 A.D.3d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-04799.

March 27, 2007.

In an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated April 17, 2006, as denied its motion for leave to renew its prior motion for summary judgment.

Murray B. Schneps, Riverhead, N.Y., for appellant.

Anthony B. Tohill, P.C., Riverhead, N.Y., for respondents.

Before: Crane, J.P., Skelos, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The new facts presented by the plaintiff on its motion for leave to renew were insufficient to change the outcome of the court's prior determination denying the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment ( see CPLR 2221 [e]; Mountains Realty Corp. v Gelbelman, 29 AD3d 874, 875; Lawson v Aspen Ford, Inc., 15 AD3d 628, 630; Steinberg v Steinberg, 15 AD3d 388, 389). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew.


Summaries of

Michael v. Hereford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 27, 2007
38 A.D.3d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Michael v. Hereford

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL STACHNIK ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant, v. HEREFORD DEVELOPMENT…

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

Date published: Mar 27, 2007

Citations

38 A.D.3d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2722
831 N.Y.S.2d 340

Citing Cases

Essig v. 58 Street

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' cross motion to compel discovery ( see Matuszak v B.R.K.…