Mazinov v. Rella
| Decision Date | 21 December 2010 |
| Citation | 912 N.Y.S.2d 896,79 A.D.3d 979 |
| Parties | Amet MAZINOV, etc., et al., plaintiffs-respondents, v. Yanna RELLA, defendant-respondent, Flagg Court Owners Corp., et al., appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Margaret G. Klein, New York, N.Y. (Peter R. Bain of counsel), for appellants.
Sanders, Sanders, Block, Woycik, Viener & Grossman, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Martim Block and Douglas H. Sanders of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Flagg Court Owners Corp. and Leemar Management Corp. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Schmidt, J.), dated April 16, 2010, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to reargue the plaintiff's opposition to that branch of their prior motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, which had been granted in an order of the same court dated November 24, 2009, and, upon reargument, in effect, vacated the order dated November 24, 2009, and denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order dated April 16, 2010, is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the plaintiffs' motion for leave to reargue is denied, and the order dated November 24, 2009, is reinstated.
A motion for leave to reargue "shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221[d][2] ). A motion for leave to reargue "is not designed to provide an unsuccessful party with successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided, or to present arguments different from those originally presented" ( McGill v. Goldman, 261 A.D.2d 593, 594, 691 N.Y.S.2d 75; see V. Veeraswamy Realty v. Yenom Corp., 71 A.D.3d 874, 895 N.Y.S.2d 860; Woody's Lbr. Co., Inc. v. Jayram Realty Corp., 30 A.D.3d 590, 817 N.Y.S.2d 391; Gellert & Rodner v. Gem Community Mgt., Inc., 20 A.D.3d 388, 797 N.Y.S.2d 316; Pryor v. Commonwealth Land Tit. Ins. Co., 17 A.D.3d 434, 793 N.Y.S.2d 452; Amato v. Lord & Taylor, Inc., 10 A.D.3d 374, 781 N.Y.S.2d 125). Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to reargue since they failed to show that the Supreme Court overlooked or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Merly, 3922-2014.
...that it initially advanced (Haque v. Daddazio, 84 A.D.3d 940, 941–942, 922 N.Y.S.2d 548 [2nd Dept.2011] ; Mazinov v. Rella, 79 A.D.3d 979, 980, 912 N.Y.S.2d 896 [2nd Dept.2010] ; Pryor v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 17 A.D.3d 434, 435–436, 793 N.Y.S.2d 452 [2nd Dept.2005] ; McGill v. ......
-
Pearl Contracting, Inc. v. Kamalakar
...or strenuously argue its position. Haque v. Daddazio,84 AD3d 940, 941—942, 922 N.Y.S.2d 548 (2nd Dept.2011) ; Mazinov v. Rella, 79 AD3d 979, 980, 912 N.Y.S.2d 896 (2nd Dept.2010) ; Pryor v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 17 AD3d 434, 435—436, 793 N.Y.S.2d 452 (2nd Dept. 2005) ; McGill v.......
-
Tyson v. Rociunas
... ... A.D.3d 899, 900-901 [2d Dept 2020]; Gonzalez v Arya , ... 140 A.D.3d at 929; see also Mazinov v Rella , 79 ... A.D.3d 979, 980 [2d Dept 2010]; Singleton v Lenox Hill ... Hosp. , 61 A.D.3d 956, 957 [2d Dept 2009]; Bueno v ... ...
-
Aquatic Pool & Spa Servs., Inc. v. WN Weaver St., LLC
...does not afford a party the opportunity to successive opportunities to reargue that which has been decided. See Mazinov v. Rella, 79 A.D.3d 979 (2nd Dept. 2011); Pro Brokerage Inc. v. Home Insurance Co., Inc., supra. Moreover, a motion for reargument preludes a litigant from advancing new a......