Amato v. Lord & Taylor, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 August 2004 |
| Docket Number | 2004-01044. |
| Parties | ANTONIO AMATO, Respondent v. LORD & TAYLOR, INC., et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for leave to reargue is denied, and the order entered August 4, 2003, is reinstated.
The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue. The plaintiff did not establish that the Supreme Court misapprehended the law or the facts in granting the defendants' prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]; Collins v Stone, 8 AD3d 321 [2004]). Further, a motion for leave to reargue is not designed to provide an unsuccessful party with successive opportunities to present arguments different from those originally presented (see McGill v Goldman, 261 AD2d 593, 594 [1999]; Matter of Mayer v National Arts Club, 192 AD2d 863, 865 [1993]; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567-568 [1979]). Here, the plaintiff did not originally present the argument regarding the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
In any event, even if we were to find that reargument was proper, the Supreme Court improperly found that a question of fact exists as to whether res ipsa loquitur may be invoked. The plaintiff's proof consisted only of the bare affirmation of his attorney who "demonstrated no personal knowledge of the manner in which the accident occurred" (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beach 104 St. Realty Inc. v. Kisslev-Mazel Realty LLC, 2009 NY Slip Op 32421 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 10/8/2009), 25569/07
... ... 2009); Bruk v. Razag, Inc. , 60 A.D.3d 715 (2 nd Dept. 2009); Taylor v. Rochdale Village, Inc. , 60 A.D.3d 930 (2 nd Dept. 2009); Doherty v. Smithtown Cent. School ... Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. , 17 A.D.3d 434 (2 nd Dept. 2005); Amato v. Lord & Taylor, Inc. , 10 A.D.3d 374 (2 nd Dept. 2004). Here, defendants have failed to make the ... ...
-
Codoner v. Bobby's Bus Co. Inc
...29 A.D.3d 737 (2nd Dept. 2006); Pryor v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 17 A.D.3d 434 (2nd Dept. 2005). Amato v. Lord & Taylor, Inc., 10 A.D.3d 374 (2nd Dept. 2004). It is within the court's discretion to grant leave to reargue when it appears that the court may have "overlooked certain ......
-
Bessa v. Anflo Indus., Inc.
...opportunity to show that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or principles of law. (Amato v. Lord & Taylor, Inc., 10 A.D.3d 374, 375, 781 N.Y.S.2d 125 [2nd Dep't 2004] ; McGill, 261 A.D.2d at 594, 691 N.Y.S.2d 75.)10 N.Y.S.3d 838 The court failed to address the portion......
-
Garcia v. Rock N G Homes LLC
...316 [2d Dept 2005]; Pryor v Commonwealth Land Tit. Ins. Co., 17 A.D.3d 434, 793 N.Y.S.2d 452 [2d Dept 2005]; Amato v Lord & Taylor, Inc., 10 A.D.3d 374, 781 N.Y.S.2d 125 [2d Dept 2004]; Frisenda v X Large Enters., 280 A.D.2d 514, 720 N.Y.S.2d 187 [2d Dept 2001]; Foley v Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558......