Banow v. Simins
| Decision Date | 15 June 1976 |
| Citation | 384 N.Y.S.2d 465,53 A.D.2d 542 |
| Parties | In re Robert BANOW et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. Herbert J. SIMINS, etc., et al., Respondents-Respondents, For a Judgment under CPLR Article 78. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
M. R. Leibowitz, pro se.
D. R. Eisner, New York City, for respondents-respondents.
Before STEVENS, P.J., and MARKEWICH, CAPOZZOLI, NUNEZ and LYNCH, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered December 18, 1975, granting respondents' cross-motion to dismiss appellants' motion to renew, unanimously affirmed without costs and without disbursements. Appellants are employees of the Bureau of Building Design of the New York City Department of Public Works. They commenced an Article 78 proceeding claiming they were improperly 'passed over' for promotion. A denial of their petition was affirmed by this Court (Matter of Banow v. Simins, 846 A.D.2d 844, 362 N.Y.S.2d 396), and their motion for leave to appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals (36 N.Y.2d 645, 371 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 332 N.E.2d 362). Appellants thereafter brought the instant motion to renew on the basis of newly discovered evidence, to wit, the transfer by their department to another department of a budgetary position to which one of them might have been promoted. While, in certain circumstances, it might be proper for the court of original jurisdiction to entertain a motion to renew based upon newly discovered evidence after the appellate courts have affirmed the original order (see Sheridan v. Andrews, 80 N.Y. 648 (1880); Henry v. Allen, 147 N.Y. 346, 41 N.E. 694 (1895); Kirkpatrick Home for Childless Women v. Kenyon, 209 App.Div. 179, 181, 204 N.Y.S. 594, 595 (1924)), appellants herein have not demonstrated that the newly discovered evidence would have rendered a different result. Nor have appellants shown that with due diligence they could not have produced the evidence at the time of the original petition.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sciss v. Metal Polishers Union Local 8A
...that "with due diligence they could not have produced the evidence at the time of the original petition." Matter of Banow v. Simins, 53 A.D.2d 542, 384 N.Y.S.2d 465 (1st Dept.1976), app. dism. 40 N.Y.2d 989 (1986), cert. den. Leibowitz v. Simins, 430 U.S. 968, 97 S.Ct. 1650, 52 L.Ed.2d 360 ......
-
Levitt v. County of Suffolk
...these circumstances, the Supreme Court's vacatur of the judgment was not appropriate (see, Matter of Beiny, supra; Matter of Banow v. Simins, 53 A.D.2d 542, 384 N.Y.S.2d 465). Even if consideration of the new evidence were appropriate at this juncture, we would find that the plaintiff's dep......
-
Harrell v. Koppers Co., Inc.
...v. Great Amer. Ins. Cos., 75 A.D.2d 790, 428 N.Y.S.2d 252, affd. 53 N.Y.2d 964, 441 N.Y.S.2d 658, 424 N.E.2d 545; Matter of Banow v. Simins, 53 A.D.2d 542, 384 N.Y.S.2d 465). Moreover, in view of the fact that new and additional evidence concerning the date of plaintiff's last exposure to p......
-
Kirchoff v. International Harvester Co.
...have not demonstrated that this purportedly newly discovered evidence would have warranted a different result (Matter of Banow v. Simins, 53 A.D.2d 542, 384 N.Y.S.2d 465, appeal dismissed 40 N.Y.2d Even if we were to reach the merits, this appeal would be unsuccessful, for plaintiffs make o......