Oremland v. Miller Minutemen Const. Corp.
| Decision Date | 26 October 1987 |
| Parties | George A. OREMLAND, et al., Respondents, v. MILLER MINUTEMEN CONSTRUCTION CORP., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Maynard, O'Connor & Smith, Albany, for appellant.
Leo M. Ritter, Poughkeepsie, for respondents.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., EIBER, SULLIVAN and HARWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.), entered September 19, 1986, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for a protective order vacating the defendant's notice of discovery and inspection, and (2) an order of the same court, entered November 19, 1986, which denominated the defendant's motion for renewal as one for reargument and denied the same.
ORDERED that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.
The defendant Miller Minutemen Construction Corp. had been hired by the plaintiffs in September of 1983 to determine the source of and to rectify a flooding problem which existed in the basement area of the plaintiffs' home. The parties entered into an oral contract whereby the defendant agreed to and eventually did perform certain work on the plaintiffs' premises. The plaintiffs thereafter remitted the sum of money owed under the contract; however, the flooding condition evidently persisted. Additional work was performed by the defendant, which entailed substantial digging, but the flooding continued. The plaintiffs alleged that as a result of the additional excavation performed by the defendant, their lawn, landscaping and driveway had been "destroyed" and that the foundation, walls, flooring and ceiling of their home had been structurally damaged. The plaintiffs then commenced the instant action to recover damages for injury to their property as a result of the defendant's alleged breach of contract.
On or about July 28, 1986, the defendant served the plaintiffs with a notice of discovery and inspection wherein the defendant sought to obtain a soil sample of the plaintiffs' property. The plaintiffs, in response, moved for and ultimately obtained a protective order vacating that notice for discovery and inspection. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, in granting the plaintiffs a protective order, concluded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diaz v. Chaudhry
...grant renewal upon facts known to the moving party (Lupoli v. Venus Laboritories, Inc/ 264 A.D.2d 820 [1999];Oremland v. Miller Minutement Constr. Corp, 133 A.D.2d 816 [1987];Patterson v. Town of Hempstead, 104 A.D.2d 975 [1984] ). Moreover, the requirement that, on renewal, new facts be mu......
-
L.K. Comstock & Co., Inc. v. Koch
...court will, in its discretion, grant the City's application for renewal and reargument (see Oremland v. Miller Minutemen Construction Corp., 133 A.D.2d 816, 818, 520 N.Y.S.2d 397 [2d Dept.1987]; Pinto v. Pinto, 120 A.D.2d 337, 338, 501 N.Y.S.2d 835 [1st Dept.1986]; Levinger v. General Motor......
-
Karlin v. Bridges
...may grant renewal upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the original motion (see, Oremland v. Miller Minutemen Constr. Corp., 133 A.D.2d 816, 520 N.Y.S.2d 397). Under the circumstances of this case, the court should have exercised its discretion to grant the defendants' motion......
-
Hantz v. Fishman
...discretion may grant renewal upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the original motion (see, Oremland v. Miller Minuteman Constr. Corp., 133 A.D.2d 816, 520 N.Y.S.2d 397). Under the circumstances of this case, the court should have exercised its discretion to grant the plainti......