Chernysheva v. Pinchuck
| Decision Date | 30 December 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2007-09207. |
| Citation | 871 N.Y.S.2d 621,57 A.D.3d 936,2008 NY Slip Op 10577 |
| Parties | YELENA CHERNYSHEVA, Appellant, v. LAWRENCE PINCHUCK et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order dated July 25, 2007 is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents.
The plaintiff sought leave to renew her opposition to the defendants' prior motions for summary judgment, which had been granted in an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 20, 2007. In opposition to the defendants' respective prima facie showings of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact. In support of her motion for leave to renew, the plaintiff's counsel provided affirmed medical reports evidencing that the plaintiff received epidural injections on December 6, 2006, December 20, 2006, and January 3, 2007, due to her alleged lumbar spine injuries. The injections occurred after the deadline had passed for the plaintiff to submit opposition to the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff's counsel also argued that after opposition was due on the motions, a medical determination was made that the plaintiff required surgery to her wrist and/or elbow, and that during an office visit to an orthopedist on January 4, 2007 the plaintiff decided to undergo the surgery on a future date. For the reasons set forth below the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew.
A motion for leave to renew "shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination" (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]) and "shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Demarquez v. Gallo
...Ferdico v. Zweig, 82 A.D.3d 1151, 1153, 919 N.Y.S.2d 521; Barnett v. Smith, 64 A.D.3d 669, 670, 883 N.Y.S.2d 573; Chernysheva v. Pinchuck, 57 A.D.3d 936, 871 N.Y.S.2d 621; Dinten–Quiros v. Brown, 49 A.D.3d 588, 852 N.Y.S.2d 793; Madison v. Tahir, 45 A.D.3d 744, 846 N.Y.S.2d 313). The requir......
-
Singh v. Avis Rent a Car Sys., Inc.
...such facts on the prior motion." (CPLR §2221[e][3]; see Barnett v. Smith, 64 A.D.3d 669, 670 [2d Dep't 2009]; Chernysheva v. Pinchuck, 57 A.D.3d 936, 937 [2d Dep't 2008].) "'A motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in ma......
-
In re Spanos
...( CPLR § 2221[e][3] ; see Barnett v. Smith, 64 A.D.3d 669, 670, 883 N.Y.S.2d 573 [2d Dep't 2009] ; Chernysheva v. Pinchuck, 57 A.D.3d 936, 937, 871 N.Y.S.2d 621 [2d Dep't 2008].) " ‘A motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligen......
-
Schenectady Steel Co., Inc. v. Meyer Contracting Corp.
...such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221[e][2], [3]; see Barnett v. Smith, 64 A.D.3d 669, 883 N.Y.S.2d 573; Chernysheva v. Pinchuck, 57 A.D.3d 936, 871 N.Y.S.2d 621; Dinten-Quiros v. Brown, 49 A.D.3d 588, 852 N.Y.S.2d 793; Madison v. Tahir, 45 A.D.3d 744, 846 N.Y.S.2d 313). In the instant......