From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Serino v. Miller Brewing Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1990
167 A.D.2d 919 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

November 16, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Oswego County, Miller, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and cross motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the cross motion by Riley Stoker Corporation for leave to renew a prior motion for summary judgment. The prior motion was instituted by defendant Miller Brewing Company and resulted in a decision favorable to Riley Stoker. A prevailing party is not permitted to renew a motion upon which it has already prevailed, particularly where, as here, the cross motion was made subsequent to the filing of a notice of appeal from the original motion (see, Diviak v. Schulefand, 140 A.D.2d 950, 951). Moreover, no valid excuse was offered for failing to submit the additional material at the time of the original application (see, Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke Velzy, 140 A.D.2d 989). Accordingly, the deposition of Gaylord, which was submitted on the cross motion to renew but which was not before the court on the initial application for summary judgment, is deleted from the record on appeal for the summary judgment proceeding (see, Hughes v. Nussbaumer, Clarke Velzy, supra).


Summaries of

Serino v. Miller Brewing Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1990
167 A.D.2d 919 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Serino v. Miller Brewing Company

Case Details

Full title:JAMES SERINO, Plaintiff, v. MILLER BREWING COMPANY, Appellant and…

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

Date published: Nov 16, 1990

Citations

167 A.D.2d 919 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
562 N.Y.S.2d 285

Citing Cases

Matthews v. New York City Housing Authority

We find that the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to renew his application for the…

Leitner v. Oberlander

The Supreme Court did not err in denying the plaintiffs' motion to renew its cross motion for partial summary…