From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Innovative Chemical v. Howe Plastics Chem

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Aug 10, 1990
164 A.D.2d 965 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

August 10, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J.

Present — Boomer, J.P., Green, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for leave to renew its prior consolidation motion and plaintiff's summary judgment motion. The renewal was based on evidence existing at the time of the prior motion, and defendant has failed to provide a valid excuse for not submitting the additional evidence in the original application (see, Monroe Dewey Partners v MDR Dev., 159 A.D.2d 949; Foley v Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568). In addition, we find that Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has submitted evidence in admissible form demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant's opposition consists of averments made by its attorney which were not made on personal knowledge. They have no probative value (see, Matter of Johnson v Sharpe, 66 A.D.2d 955). Finally, defendant has failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that the Erie County action and the New York County action contain common issues of law and fact, thus making consolidation inappropriate (see, CPLR 602 [a]).


Summaries of

Innovative Chemical v. Howe Plastics Chem

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Aug 10, 1990
164 A.D.2d 965 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Innovative Chemical v. Howe Plastics Chem

Case Details

Full title:INNOVATIVE CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Respondent, v. HOWE PLASTICS CHEMICAL…

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

Date published: Aug 10, 1990

Citations

164 A.D.2d 965 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
560 N.Y.S.2d 65