Defina v. Daniel
| Decision Date | 08 June 2016 |
| Citation | 140 A.D.3d 825,33 N.Y.S.3d 421,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04381 |
| Parties | Danielle DEFINA, appellant, v. Kevin DANIEL, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Sacco & Fillas, LLP, Astoria, N.Y. (Si Aydiner of counsel), for appellant.
Russo, Apoznanski & Tambasco, Melville, N.Y. (Susan J. Mitola and Gerard Ferrara of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered May 22, 2014, which denied her motion for leave to renew her opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident, which had been granted in an order of the same court dated March 4, 2014.
ORDERED that the order entered May 22, 2014, is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew is granted, upon renewal, the order dated March 4, 2014, is vacated, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.
On June 27, 2012, the plaintiff and the defendant were involved in a motor vehicle collision on an entrance ramp to the Wantagh Parkway in Nassau County. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of the accident. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident, submitting in support the affirmed report of a physician. In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an unnotarized statement of a chiropractor. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the statement of the plaintiff's chiropractor had not been submitted in admissible form (see generally CPLR 2106 ; Paul– Austin v. McPherson,
111 A.D.3d 610, 611, 974 N.Y.S.2d 281 ).
Thereafter, the plaintiff moved for leave to renew her opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment. In support, she submitted a notarized affidavit of the chiropractor and an affirmation of her attorney, who stated that he mistakenly included the unnotarized copy of the chiropractor's statement with the plaintiff's opposition papers instead of the notarized affidavit. In an order entered May 22, 2014, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew. The plaintiff appeals, and we reverse.
The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew. “CPLR 2221(e) has not been construed so narrowly as to disqualify, as new facts not offered on the prior motion, facts contained in a document originally rejected for consideration because the document was not in admissible form” (Schwelnus v. Urological Assoc. of L.I., P.C., 94 A.D.3d 971, 972, 943 N.Y.S.2d 141 ). Here, the inadvertent mistake of the plaintiff's attorney in including the unnotarized statement of the chiropractor with the plaintiff's opposition papers, rather than...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trigoso v. Correa
...summary judgment motion was tantamount to law office failure, which constituted a reasonable justification (see Defina v. Daniel, 140 A.D.3d 825, 826, 33 N.Y.S.3d 421 ; Castor v. Cuevas, 137 A.D.3d 734, 734, 26 N.Y.S.3d 564 ; Hackney v. Monge, 103 A.D.3d 844, 845, 960 N.Y.S.2d 176 ). Thus, ......
-
Schwartz v. Partridge
...affirmation of the plaintiff's out-of-state expert, resubmitted in affidavit form (see CPLR 2106[a] ; see generally Defina v. Daniel , 140 A.D.3d 825, 826, 33 N.Y.S.3d 421 ), relied upon facts that were not supported by the record and, thus, was speculative and conclusory and insufficient t......
- Breest v. Long Island R.R.
-
Shvyetsov v. 1900 Newkirk Ave.
... ... in his opposition to the original motion (see Trigoso v ... Correa, 150 A.D.3d at 1043; Defina v Daniel, ... 140 A.D.3d 825, 826) ... Moreover, ... upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly denied the ... defendant's ... ...