From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mendez v. Queens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 5, 2007
39 A.D.3d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 692.

April 5, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered September 25, 2006, which, upon reargument of a prior order denying plaintiff partial summary judgment on "liability negligence," vacated that order and granted the relief requested, directing plaintiff to proceed on the issues of serious injury and damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey Moskovits, P.C., New York (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel), for appellants.

Frederic B. Potack, Bronx, for respondent.

Before: Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.


The court properly granted reargument upon a showing that it had "overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision" ( Loland v City of New York, 212 AD2d 674, 674; see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]). The court had previously misapprehended the facts when it precluded the operator of each vehicle from testifying about negligent operation by the other. Plaintiff's deposition testimony revealed her lack of knowledge of the comparative negligence on the part of the operators. Appellants, the owner and operator of the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger, failed to meet their burden of demonstrating issues of fact as to fault through submission of evidence in admissible form, as opposed to mere speculation or conclusory allegations.

We have considered appellants' remaining arguments and find them without merit.


Summaries of

Mendez v. Queens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 5, 2007
39 A.D.3d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Mendez v. Queens

Case Details

Full title:ANDREA MENDEZ, Respondent, v. QUEENS PLUMBING SUPPLY, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 5, 2007

Citations

39 A.D.3d 260 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2978
833 N.Y.S.2d 71

Citing Cases

Zelouf Int'l Corp. v. Zelouf

“A motion for leave to reargue ... shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or…

Weisberg v. Standard

Discussion "A motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 is addressed to the sound discretion of the…