From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miles v. Charles Petri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 28, 2009
64 A.D.3d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

Nos. 2008-06011, 2008-10025.

July 28, 2009.

In an action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered May 16, 2008, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied, as academic, the plaintiff's cross motion to disqualify the defendants' attorney, compel the defendants to serve a verified bill of particulars, and compel the defendants to comply with certain demands for disclosure and subpoenas duces tecum, and (2), as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the same court entered September 5, 2008, as denied that branch of his motion which was for leave to renew his cross motion and opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Sadis Goldberg, LLP, New York, N.Y. (David M. Kasell of counsel), for appellant.

Grunwald Seman, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Mary Ellen O'Brien of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Fisher, J.P., Dillon, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order entered May 16, 2008, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered September 5, 2008, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

The defendants satisfied their prima facie burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint ( see Schneidman v Tollman, 261 AD2d 289).

The Supreme Court also properly denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew, as the new evidence submitted constituted inadmissible hearsay ( see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d at 562; PN Tiffany Props., Inc. v Maron, 16 AD3d 395, 396; Platovsky v City of New York, 275 AD2d 699, 700; Young v Fleary, 226 AD2d 454, 455).

[ See 2008 NY Slip Op 31479(U).]


Summaries of

Miles v. Charles Petri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 28, 2009
64 A.D.3d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Miles v. Charles Petri

Case Details

Full title:MILES GARNETT, Appellant, v. CHARLES PETRI et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jul 28, 2009

Citations

64 A.D.3d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 6001
882 N.Y.S.2d 657

Citing Cases

Alvarado v. Alvarado

See Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc. v. New York State Thruway Authority, 149 Misc.2d 268, 561 N.Y.S.2d…