Ramsco Inc. v. Riozzi
| Decision Date | 01 December 1994 |
| Parties | RAMSCO INC., Appellant, v. David A. RIOZZI, Doing Business as Riozzi Trucking, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Carola & Di Domenico (Robert M. Cohen, Ballston Lake, of counsel), Mechanicville, for appellant.
Donald Tirschwell, New City, for Glasco Associates and another, respondents.
Albanese, Albanese & Fiore (Joseph A. Fiore, of counsel), Garden City, for Sullivan County Equities, respondent.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and MERCURE, CREW, WHITE and YESAWICH, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered July 27, 1993 in Ulster County, which denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and for leave to serve an amended complaint.
Plaintiff appeals the denial of its motion seeking, inter alia, reconsideration of a prior order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Glasco Associates Ltd., Donald Tirschwell and Sullivan County Equities dismissing all causes of action as against those defendants, and declaring plaintiff's mechanic's lien void for failure to adequately describe the property against which it was asserted. The motion is, as plaintiff characterizes it, a motion for renewal, rather than reargument, for it seeks to introduce purportedly new evidence to bolster plaintiff's assertion that the description of the property liened was legally sufficient.
Nevertheless, Supreme Court's denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion, for plaintiff does not represent that the "new" evidence was unavailable to it at the time of the original motion for summary judgment, nor does it offer any reasonable excuse for the failure to submit it at that time (see, Kambour v. Farrar, 188 A.D.2d 719, 719-720, 590 N.Y.S.2d 586). The only reason plaintiff proffers for not having done so is that it "did not expect that a primary basis for the court's decision would be its finding that the description was insufficient to identify the property, and could not anticipate that this finding would be based in large part on defendants' mischaracterizations with regard to the location and description of the property". The papers submitted by defendants on the original motion demonstrate, however, that they raised the issue of the property description as one ground for dismissal of the complaint, and plaintiff's answering affidavit reveals that it was aware of this argument; indeed, plaintiff attempted to answer it. Though required to, plaintiff simply did not lay bare all of its proof in opposition to the original motion (see, Lansing Research Corp. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abrams v. Berelson
...Auth., 90 A.D.3d 962, 963, 934 N.Y.S.2d 840; see Cannistra v. Gibbons, 224 A.D.2d 570, 572, 639 N.Y.S.2d 48; Ramsco, Inc. v. Riozzi, 210 A.D.2d 592, 593, 619 N.Y.S.2d 809; Levitt v. County of Suffolk, 166 A.D.2d 421, 422–423, 560 N.Y.S.2d 487 [plaintiff failed to proffer a sufficient explan......
-
Cannistra v. Gibbons
... ... upon newly discovered evidence which was not available at the time of the prior motion (see, Ramsco, Inc. v. Riozzi, 210 A.D.2d 592, 619 N.Y.S.2d 809; Elgem, Inc. v. National Gypsum, 192 A.D.2d 636, ... ...
-
Wagman v. Village of Catskill
...to the level of a justifiable excuse sufficient for this court to find, even under a flexible standard (see, Ramsco Inc. v. Riozzi, 210 A.D.2d 592, 593, 619 N.Y.S.2d 809, 810), that Supreme Court abused its discretion in the denial of the motion. As to Supreme Court's grant of summary judgm......
-
Grassel v. Albany Medical Center Hosp.
...205 A.D.2d 905, 905-06, 613 N.Y.S.2d 473, 473-74). Although this standard is somewhat flexible (see, Ramsco Inc. v. Riozzi, 210 A.D.2d 592, 593, 619 N.Y.S.2d 809, 809-10), plaintiff nonetheless has failed to meet it Even assuming that the particular circumstances surrounding plaintiff's del......