Lee v. Glicksman
Decision Date | 31 January 2005 |
Docket Number | 2004-02676. |
Parties | MI JA LEE, Respondent, v. PAUL K. GLICKSMAN et al., Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that a motion for leave to renew and reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Daniel Perla Assoc. v Ginsberg, 256 AD2d 303 [1998]; Loland v City of New York, 212 AD2d 674 [1995]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew and/or reargue.
Moreover, although the defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]), the affirmation of the plaintiff's treating physician submitted upon renewal and reargument in opposition to the defendant's motion was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, upon renewal and reargument, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Abrams v. Berelson
...20 A.D.3d 454, 454–455, 797 N.Y.S.2d 774; see Lardo v. Rivlab Transp. Corp., 46 A.D.3d 759, 759, 848 N.Y.S.2d 337; Mi Ja Lee v. Glicksman, 14 A.D.3d 669, 670, 789 N.Y.S.2d 276). Torres's availability and testimony constituted new facts not offered on the prior motion within the meaning of C......
-
De Urgiles v. 181 Varick St. LLC
...(Lawman v. Gap, Inc., 38 A.D.3d 852, 852-53 [2d Dept 2007]; Matheus v. Weiss, 20 A.D.3d 454, 454-55 [2d Dept 2005]; Mi Ja Lee v. Glicksman, 14 A.D.3d 669, 670 [2d Dept 2005]; Daniel Perla Associatesv. Ginsberg, 256 A.D.2d 303, 303 [2d Dept 1998].) "[T]he movant must offer a reasonable justi......
- Axos Bank v. Michael Gangi Plumbing & Heating Contractors, Inc.
-
Derby v. Bitan
...addressed to the sound discretion of the court” (Matheus v. Weiss, 20 A.D.3d 454, 454–455, 797 N.Y.S.2d 774; see Mi Ja Lee v. Glicksman, 14 A.D.3d 669, 670, 789 N.Y.S.2d 276). Pursuant to CPLR 2221(e), a motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motio......