From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

President R.C. v. Park Place Entertainment

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 23, 2002
300 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-10358 and 2002-02601

December 3, 2002.

December 23, 2002.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, defamation, breach of contract, and tortious interference with a contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Connell, J.), entered October 2, 2001, as denied their motion to compel the defendants to produce certain documents in response to their discovery demands, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, entered December 26, 2001, as denied their motion for leave to renew the motion to compel.

Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Louis M. Solomon, Andrew J. Levander, and Neil A. Steiner of counsel), and Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein Schlissel, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Loretta M. Gastwirth of counsel), for appellants (one brief filed).

Meyer, Suozzi, English Klein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Kevin Schlosser of counsel), for respondents Park Place Entertainment Corp., and Cadwalader, Wickersham Taft, New York, N.Y. (Dennis J. Block, Jonathan M. Hoff, and Alla Lerner of counsel), for respondents Richard B. Neff, Lee Hillman, and Michael C. Goldberg, executors of the Estate of Arthur Goldberg, and Clive Cummis (one brief filed).

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly declined to compel the defendants to comply with the plaintiffs' request for production of documents created after the commencement of this action or relating to other casinos, since those documents are not material or necessary to the prosecution of the action (see Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403; Blagrove v. Cox,. 294 A.D.2d 526).

The plaintiffs' motion for leave to renew was properly denied, since it was not based upon additional or material facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination (see Feldstein v. Rounick, 295 A.D.2d 398; Williams v. Fitzsimmons, 295 A.D.2d 342). In addition, the plaintiffs failed to offer a valid excuse for not submitting the additional facts upon their original motion (see Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Woney, 293 A.D.2d 539; LaRosa v. Trapani, 271 A.D.2d 506]).

SMITH, J.P., O'BRIEN, KRAUSMAN and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

President R.C. v. Park Place Entertainment

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 23, 2002
300 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

President R.C. v. Park Place Entertainment

Case Details

Full title:PRESIDENT R.C. — ST. REGIS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, ET AL., appellants, v. PARK…

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

Date published: Dec 23, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
751 N.Y.S.2d 880