Delgrosso v. 1325 Limited Partnership

• Decision Date: 02 June 2003
• Citation: 760 N.Y.S.2d 331,306 A.D.2d 241
• Parties: DANIEL DELGROSSO, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>1325 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

306 A.D.2d 241

760 N.Y.S.2d 331

DANIEL DELGROSSO, Respondent,

v.1325 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et al., Appellants.

Decided June 2, 2003.

Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, upon reargument, the motion is denied, and the order dated April 29, 2002, is reinstated.

The Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff's motion, denominated as one for leave to reargue. The plaintiffs failed to establish that the court overlooked or misapprehended any relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law (see Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1979]). In any event, the plaintiff's papers on reargument failed to demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for his failure to file a timely note of issue, or the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3216 [e]; Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp., 152 AD2d 552 [1989]).