Opinion
637 CA 18–01677
07-31-2019
CHARLES ZOLOT, JACKSON HEIGHTS, FOR DEFENDANTS–APPELLANTS. RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC, BUFFALO (ADAM M. BRASKY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT.
CHARLES ZOLOT, JACKSON HEIGHTS, FOR DEFENDANTS–APPELLANTS.
RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC, BUFFALO (ADAM M. BRASKY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Defendants-appellants (defendants) appeal from an order that denied their motion for leave to renew that part of their prior motion to dismiss the complaint against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. The order also granted plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint. We conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion for leave to renew (see CPLR 2221[e][2] ; Chiappone v. William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 96 A.D.3d 1627, 1627–1628, 946 N.Y.S.2d 787 [4th Dept. 2012] ; Kirby v. Suburban Elec. Engrs. Contrs., Inc., 83 A.D.3d 1380, 1381, 919 N.Y.S.2d 698 [4th Dept. 2011], lv dismissed 17 N.Y.3d 783, 929 N.Y.S.2d 83, 952 N.E.2d 1078 [2011] ; see generally Cassatt v. Zimmer, Inc., 161 A.D.3d 1549, 1551, 75 N.Y.S.3d 764 [4th Dept. 2018] ).
We further conclude that plaintiff met its initial burden on its cross motion of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 3212[b] ) and that defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see Stonehill Capital Mgt. LLC v. Bank of the W., 28 N.Y.3d 439, 448, 68 N.E.3d 683 [2016] ). In particular, we note that defendants' vague and general assertion that the prior debt-holder had discharged the debt is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Lodge II Hotel LLC v. Joso Realty LLC, 155 A.D.3d 1631, 1631, 64 N.Y.S.3d 846 [4th Dept. 2017] ).