Borrie v. County of Suffolk
| Decision Date | 29 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2019–08676,Index No. 7820/09 |
| Citation | 152 N.Y.S.3d 321 (Mem),197 A.D.3d 1285 |
| Parties | Roderick BORRIE, etc., respondent, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, appellant, et al., defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
197 A.D.3d 1285
152 N.Y.S.3d 321 (Mem)
Roderick BORRIE, etc., respondent,
v.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, appellant, et al., defendants.
2019–08676
Index No. 7820/09
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—March 15, 2021
September 29, 2021
Dennis M. Cohen, County Attorney (Diana T. Bishop and Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, N.Y. [John M. Denby and Christi M. Kunzig], of counsel), for appellant.
Anthony J. Scaffidi, New York, N.Y. (Kevin B. Lynch of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, BETSY BARROS, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the defendant County of Suffolk appeals from an
order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Vincent J. Martorana, J.), dated May 3, 2019. The order denied that defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate a judgment of the same court (William B. Rebolini, J.) entered November 16, 2011, upon its failure to answer or timely appear, and for leave to renew its prior motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, which had been denied in an order of the same court (Thomas F. Whelan, J.) dated March 12, 2010.
ORDERED that the order dated May 3, 2019, is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff, as executor of the estate of Rebecca Borrie, commenced this action in February 2009, alleging that the decedent was walking along Quaker Path at or near its intersection with Huyler Court in the Hamlet of Setauket when she was struck and killed by a motor vehicle. The complaint alleged, inter alia, improper roadway design, construction, and maintenance. In an order dated March 12, 2010, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant County of Suffolk upon its failure...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. Laroche
...of due diligence and that the newly discovered evidence would probably have produced a different result" ( Borrie v. County of Suffolk, 197 A.D.3d 1285, 1286, 152 N.Y.S.3d 321 ; see Anghel v. Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., 190 A.D.3d 903, 905, 141 N.Y.S.3d 95 ; Wall St. Mtge. Bankers, Ltd.......
-
JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Borukhov
...of due diligence and that the newly discovered evidence would probably have produced a different result" ( Borrie v. County of Suffolk, 197 A.D.3d 1285, 1286, 152 N.Y.S.3d 321 ; see Globe Trade Capital, LLC v. Hoey, 199 A.D.3d 775, 154 N.Y.S.3d 258 ).The Supreme Court properly denied the de......
-
JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Borukhov
...of due diligence and that the newly discovered evidence would probably have produced a different result" (Borrie v County of Suffolk, 197 A.D.3d 1285, 1286; see Globe Trade Capital, LLC v Hoey, 199 A.D.3d 775). The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion, in effect, pursuant to......
-
HSBC Bank USA v. Lozovskiy
...of due diligence and that the newly discovered evidence would probably have produced a different result" ( Borrie v. County of Suffolk, 197 A.D.3d 1285, 1286, 152 N.Y.S.3d 321 ; see Globe Trade Capital, LLC v. Hoey, 199 A.D.3d 775, 776, 154 N.Y.S.3d 258 ). Here, the defendants failed to sub......