Hurst v. Hilgenfeldt
| Decision Date | 25 January 1993 |
| Citation | 592 N.Y.S.2d 974,189 A.D.2d 855 |
| Parties | Celeste M. HURST, Respondent, v. Deborah A. HILGENFELDT, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Grogan & Botti, P.C., Goshen (Joseph A. Owen, of counsel), for appellant. Jeffrey S. Altbach, Liberty, for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Green, J.), dated December 11, 1990, which granted the plaintiff's motion for renewal, and upon renewal, (1) vacated a prior order of the same court, dated April 4, 1990, which had granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for renewal is denied, the order dated April 4, 1990, and the judgment dated May 1, 1990, entered thereon are reinstated, and the complaint is dismissed. The instant action arose from an accident which occurred in September 1987. After issue was joined, the defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff did not sustain a "serious injury" within the purview of Insurance Law § 5102. Upon due consideration of the medical evidence submitted in support of, and in opposition to, the motion, the court, by order dated April 4, 1990, properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant (see, Licari v. Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230, 455 N.Y.S.2d 570, 441 N.E.2d 1088). The plaintiff subsequently moved for renewal of her opposition to the defendant's original motion. Her motion was based on an unsworn medical report dated May 25, 1990. The court granted renewal, vacated its prior order, and denied summary judgment. We now reverse and reinstate the prior order. Under the circumstances existing at bar, we conclude that the plaintiff inexcusably failed to lay bare her proof in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Star v. Badillo
...to consider the reports based on examinations conducted after the date of the court's previous order (see, Hurst v. Hilgenfeldt, 189 A.D.2d 855, 856, 592 N.Y.S.2d 974, 975). None of the remaining evidence offered in support of the plaintiff's motion to renew was sufficient to raise a triabl......
-
Palmer v. Toledo, 1
...on the motion to renew were not made available earlier (see, Star v. Badillo, 225 A.D.2d 610, 638 N.Y.S.2d 791; Hurst v. Hilgenfeldt, 189 A.D.2d 855, 592 N.Y.S.2d 974; Gendjoian v. Heaps, 186 A.D.2d 534, 588 N.Y.S.2d ...
- Hunt v. Godesky
-
Scavenger Inc. v. Gt Interactive Software
...IAS Justice was proper since the purportedly new material, in the form offered, had little or no evidentiary value (see, Hurst v Hilgenfeldt, 189 A.D.2d 855, 856). We have considered the parties' remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them ...