Mundo v. SMS Hasenclever Maschinenfabrik

Decision Date27 February 1996
Citation224 A.D.2d 343,638 N.Y.S.2d 68
PartiesJose MUNDO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SMS HASENCLEVER MASCHINENFABRIK, Defendant-Respondent, and Siemens Corporation, Defendant. .
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

P.L. Gale, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.

A.J. McNulty, New York City, for defendant-respondent.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ELLERIN, RUBIN, KUPFERMAN and WILLIAMS, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered December 23, 1994, which, in a products liability action, granted defendant manufacturer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and order, same court (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about March 15, 1995, which denied plaintiffs' motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant's motion for summary judgment, made some eight years after the accident and five years after commencement of the action, was properly granted for plaintiffs' failure to specify any defect in the bonding press in which his hand was caught (see, Jerry v. Borden Co., 45 A.D.2d 344, 348, 358 N.Y.S.2d 426). While plaintiffs did submit an expert's affidavit suggesting a design defect as the cause of the injury on their motion to renew, this was properly rejected by the IAS court as inexcusably belated, with an apt reference to the principle that "renewal is granted sparingly ... it is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation" (Matter of Beiny, 132 A.D.2d 190, 210, 522 N.Y.S.2d 511, lv. dismissed 71 N.Y.2d 994, 529 N.Y.S.2d 277, 524 N.E.2d 879; see also, Barnes v. State of New York, 159 A.D.2d 753, 552 N.Y.S.2d 57, lv. dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 935, 563 N.Y.S.2d 63, 564 N.E.2d 673).

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Welch Foods, Inc. v. Wilson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 4, 1998
    ...given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation' " (Mundo v. SMS Hasenclever Maschinenfabrik, 224 A.D.2d 343, 344, 638 N.Y.S.2d 68, lv. denied in part and dismissed in part 88 N.Y.2d 1014, 649 N.Y.S.2d 376, 672 N.E.2d Order unanimously revers......
  • Sullivan v. Harnisch
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 22, 2012
    ...N.Y.S.2d 483 [1992] ). The subsequent retention of an expert is not proper grounds for renewal ( see Mundo v. SMS Hasenclever Maschinenfabrik, 224 A.D.2d 343, 344, 638 N.Y.S.2d 68 [1996],lv. dismissed in part, denied in part88 N.Y.2d 1014, 649 N.Y.S.2d 376, 672 N.E.2d 601 [1996] ). In any e......
  • Sullivan v. Harnisch
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 20, 2012
    ...[1st Dept.1992] ). The subsequent retention of an expert is not proper grounds for renewal ( see Mundo v. SMS Hasenclever Maschinenfabrik, 224 A.D.2d 343, 344, 638 N.Y.S.2d 68 [1st Dept.1996],lv. dismissed in part, denied in part88 N.Y.2d 1014, 649 N.Y.S.2d 376, 672 N.E.2d 601 [1996] ). In ......
  • People v. Torres
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 27, 1996
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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