Klein v. Auerbach, 2002-03790.

Decision Date03 November 2003
Docket Number2002-03790.
PartiesSAMUEL J. KLEIN, Appellant, v. STEPHEN B. AUERBACH et al., Respondents.
CourtNew 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]).

Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Elie v. City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 20 octobre 2011
    ...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.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 3 novembre 2003
  • People v. Walls, 1990-03153.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 3 novembre 2003

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT