Anthoine v. Lord

• Decision Date: 27 June 2002
• Citation: 744 N.Y.S.2d 666,295 A.D.2d 293
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: EDITH ANTHOINE et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>LORD, BISSELL & BROOK et al., Respondents.

295 A.D.2d 293

744 N.Y.S.2d 666

EDITH ANTHOINE et al., Appellants,

v.LORD, BISSELL & BROOK et al., Respondents.

Decided June 27, 2002.

Concur — Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Wallach and Gonzalez, JJ.

The motion court properly denied renewal based on the lack of a sufficient explanation for plaintiffs' failure to submit the purportedly new evidence on the original motion, which was occasioned by a tactical decision of counsel (see, Rockefeller Univ. v Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 240 AD2d 341, 343, lv denied 91 NY2d 803; cf., Framapac Delicatessen v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 249 AD2d 36). In any event, the motion court was correct in its observation that, even if the proffered evidence were considered, it would provide no basis for changing the original determination.

We have considered plaintiffs' other arguments and find them unavailing.