Pro Brokerage, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co.
| Citation | 99 A.D.2d 971,472 N.Y.S.2d 661 |
| Parties | PRO BROKERAGE, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 06 March 1984 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
A.P. Mantovani, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.
S.J. Ugelow, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before SANDLER, J.P., and ASCH, SILVERMAN, LYNCH and ALEXANDER, JJ.
Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered June 15, 1983, which granted plaintiff's motion for reargument and upon reargument, recalled its earlier decision and order which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint; and denied said motion for summary judgment, with leave to renew upon completion of further discovery by the plaintiffs and directed that said discovery be completed within 60 days, is unanimously reversed on the law with costs; the motion for reargument is denied, the order and decision granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is reinstated and the complaint is dismissed.
Special Term appropriately observed in its initial order and decision granting summary judgment to the defendant that in a note of issue dated September 7, 1982, plaintiff had indicated that all necessary discovery proceedings had been completed. The fact that the case had been removed from the calendar by agreement between the parties in October of 1982, and was not on the calendar at the time the motion for summary judgment was made is irrelevant. Moreover, it appears that the parties agreed at an October 1, 1982 pre-trial conference that the note of issue be withdrawn and the case marked off the calendar in order to allow the defendant to make the motion for summary judgment. It was agreed that if the defendant's summary judgment motion was denied, the defendant would pay the expenses of a new note of issue. Defendant promptly made its motion and Special Term correctly determined that the plaintiff had failed to substantiate the allegations set forth in its complaint and failed to demonstrate that any issue of fact existed which required a trial. The plaintiff's later assertion that further discovery was necessary, not only was set forth in mere conclusory terms, but no attempt was made to explain what further discovery was necessary and to what extent such further discovery would overcome the legal insufficiency of the complaint. Significantly, for the 2 1/2 years immediately prior to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Cigna
...court ( id, citing William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis , 182 A.D.2d 22, 588 NYS 2d 8 [1st Dept 1992] ; Pro Brokerage v Home Ins. Co. , 99 A.D.2d 971, 472 NYS 2d 661 [1st Dept 1984] ). In this instant reargument, Plaintiff circuitously and inconsistently argues that This Court erred as it ......
-
Michael v. Communications Workers of America AFL-CIO
...CPLR 2221 motion for leave to reargue is granted (Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568, 418 N.Y.S.2d 588 Pro Brokerage, Inc. v. Home Insurance Co., 99 A.D.2d 971, 472 N.Y.S.2d 661 A motion to reargue is designed to give a party a chance to convince the court that relevant facts were overlooke......
-
Hecht v. Vanderbilt Associates
...433, 450 N.E.2d 239; Witte v. Incorporated Vill. of Port Washington N., 114 A.D.2d 359, 493 N.Y.S.2d 879; Pro Brokerage v. Home Ins. Co., 99 A.D.2d 971, 472 N.Y.S.2d 661, appeal dismissed 64 N.Y.2d ...
-
In re East 51st St. Crane Collapse Litig.
...designed to afford the unsuccessful party successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided ( Pro Brokerage v. Home Ins. Co., 99 A.D.2d 971, 472 N.Y.S.2d 661) or to present arguments different from those originally asserted ( Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 418 N.Y.S.2d 588; Will......