From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alvarez v. Eviles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 2008
56 A.D.3d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2008-03784.

November 12, 2008.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Honeywell, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), entered March 18, 2008, as, upon reargument, adhered to an original determination in an order entered June 27, 2007, denying, as untimely, a renewed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Pino Associates, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Brian Colistra of counsel, and George W. Flynn and Jonathan A. Strauss, pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellant.

Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Chambers, JJ.


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, upon reargument, the order entered June 27, 2007, denying the renewed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the defendant Honeywell, Inc., is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a determination of the renewed motion for summary judgment on the merits.

Under the circumstances of this case, Honeywell demonstrated "good cause" for the delay in making the renewed motion ( see generally Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 651), since significant discovery was still outstanding after the deposition was taken and Honeywell's expert witnesses needed to consider the additional discovery in preparing the affidavits submitted on the motion ( see Gonzalez v 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 NY2d 124, 129; Cooper v Hodge, 13 AD3d 1111, 1112; Kunz v Gleeson, 9 AD3d 480; cf. Filannino v Triborough Bridge Tunnel Auth., 34 AD3d 280; Espejo v Hiro Real Estate Co., 19 AD3d 360). Thus, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion, upon reargument, in adhering to its prior determination, denying the renewed motion as untimely.

In light of our determination, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions.


Summaries of

Alvarez v. Eviles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 2008
56 A.D.3d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Alvarez v. Eviles

Case Details

Full title:AMANDA ALVAREZ et al., Respondents, v. ELSA EVILES et al., Respondents…

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

Date published: Nov 12, 2008

Citations

56 A.D.3d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 8687
867 N.Y.S.2d 528

Citing Cases

Shao v. Wei

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court should have determined that good cause existed to review the…

Pope v. Safety Quality Plus, Inc.

Subsequent to the making of this motion, by stipulation dated September 23, 2008, Knight agreed to produce…