Klein v. Auerbach, 2002-03790.
Decision Date | 03 November 2003 |
Docket Number | 2002-03790. |
Parties | SAMUEL J. KLEIN, Appellant, v. STEPHEN B. AUERBACH et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion. It is well settled that successive motions for summary judgment should not be made "in the guise of motions to renew where the new material could have been submitted with the original motion for summary judgment" (Laxrand Constr. Corp. v R.S.C.A. Realty Corp., 135 AD2d 685, 686 [1987] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Rose v La Joux, 93 AD2d 817, 818 [1983]). In any event, there are triable issues of fact which preclude the granting of summary judgment (see Laxrand Constr. Corp. v R.S.C.A. Realty Corp., supra; Baron v Charles Azzue, Inc., 240 AD2d 447, 449 [1997]).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Elie v. City of New York
...Dept.2004]; Capuano v. Platzner Int'l Group, Ltd., 5 A.D.3d 620, 621, 774 N.Y.S.2d 780 [2d Dept.2004]; Klein v. Auerbach, 1 A.D.3d 317, 766 N.Y.S.2d 580 [2d Dept.2003] ). However, this Court agrees with plaintiff's counsel that the instant motion does not violate the rule against successive......
- Hoffer v. Silich, 2003-00274.
- People v. Walls, 1990-03153.