Schoen v. Rochester Gas and Electric, Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 September 1997
• Citation: 242 A.D.2d 928,665 N.Y.S.2d 372
• Parties: , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 7901 Harold SCHOEN, III, Appellant, v. ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC, INC., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 372

665 N.Y.S.2d 372

242 A.D.2d 928, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 7901

Harold SCHOEN, III, Appellant, v. ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC, INC., Respondent.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department.

Sept. 30, 1997.

Kenny & Kenny by Robert Cahalan, Syracuse, for appellant.

Smith, Sovik, Kendrick & Sugnet, P.C. by James Cunningham, Syracuse, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of plaintiff to renew his prior motion for summary judgment. Even assuming, arguendo, that testimony from examinations before trial conducted after the prior motion was denied constitutes newly discovered evidence, we conclude that the court properly determined that the newly discovered evidence did not warrant a different result (see, Laxrand Constr. Corp. v. R.S.C.A. Realty Corp., 135 A.D.2d 685, 686, 522 N.Y.S.2d 584, lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 804, 528 N.Y.S.2d 829, 524 N.E.2d 149; Matter of Banow v. Simins, 53 A.D.2d 542, 384 N.Y.S.2d 465). That evidence conflicts with an affidavit submitted in opposition to the prior motion, presenting credibility issues that render summary judgment inappropriate (see, Capelin Assocs. v. Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 N.Y.2d 338, 341, 357 N.Y.S.2d 478, 313 N.E.2d 776; Mickelson v. Babcock, 190 A.D.2d 1037, 1038, 593 N.Y.S.2d 657).

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J.--Renewal.)

GREEN, J.P., and LAWTON, WISNER, BALIO and BOEHM, JJ., concur.