Opinion
03-12-2024
William MOLLEMA, Plaintiff, v. CITIGROUP, INC. et al., Defendants. Citigroup Technology, Inc. et al., Third–Party Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Hallen Welding Service Inc., Third–Party Defendant–Appellant.
Litchfield Cavo, LLP, New York (Anthony Broccolo of counsel), for appellant. Malapero Prisco & Klauber LLP, New York (Tracy L. Frankel of counsel), for respondents.
Litchfield Cavo, LLP, New York (Anthony Broccolo of counsel), for appellant.
Malapero Prisco & Klauber LLP, New York (Tracy L. Frankel of counsel), for respondents.
Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Scarpulla, Pitt-Burke, O’Neill Levy, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered July 22, 2021, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied third-party defendant Hallen Welding Service Inc.’s (Hallen) motion to renew its motion to strike the third-party complaint or, in the alternative, to compel defendant/third-party plaintiff Tishman Construction Corporation of New York (Tishman) to produce a witness with knowledge of the applicable contract and owner controlled insurance program (OCIP) for a deposition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court properly denied Hallen’s motion to renew since Hallen failed to establish a reasonable justification for not bringing its alleged "new facts" to Supreme Court’s attention in the original motion (see 225 Fifth Ave, Retail LLC v. 225 5th, LLC, 92 A.D.3d 471, 472, 937 N.Y.S.2d 852 [1st Dept. 2012]). The deposition transcript Hallen proffered as the predicate for renewal was from its vice president and an owner, who was available to Hallen for questioning from his execution of the master trade agreement with Tishman through plaintiff’s incident, both events having occurred long before the making of Hallen’s motion to strike (see Mike v. Riverbay Corp., 56 A.D.3d 357, 358, 867 N.Y.S.2d 447 [1st Dept. 2008]).
We have considered Hallen’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.