Seifts v. Markle
| Decision Date | 05 January 1995 |
| Citation | 620 N.Y.S.2d 620,211 A.D.2d 848 |
| Parties | Madelon SEIFTS, Plaintiff, and Raymond Kniskern, Appellant, v. William MARKLE, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Grasso, Rodriguez, Putorti, Grasso & Zyra (Mark Gaylord, of counsel), Schenectady, for appellant.
Pemberton and Briggs (James L. Pemberton, of counsel), Schenectady, for respondent.
Before CARDONA, P.J., and MIKOLL, CREW, YESAWICH and PETERS, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (White, J.), entered January 3, 1994 in Schenectady County, which denied plaintiff Raymond Kniskern's motion to renew a prior order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing said plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff Raymond Kniskern (hereinafter plaintiff) sued for personal injuries sustained as a result of an automobile accident of April 14, 1988. A trial date was set for September 13, 1993 on plaintiff's motion for a trial preference. On June 18, 1993 defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a "serious injury" as required by Insurance Law § 5104(a). Plaintiff was unable to schedule a reexamination with his treating physician who had retired and was away at the time. He therefore requested several adjournments of the motion which were consented to by defendant. Plaintiff was finally examined on August 24, 1993. Supreme Court set a final date of August 30, 1993 for submission of papers and denied any further adjournment when plaintiff's counsel advised the court that the doctor's report had failed to arrive and plaintiff was not able to submit a reply affidavit. Supreme Court granted summary judgment to defendant against plaintiff on September 7, 1993 dismissing his complaint because plaintiff failed to file any submissions. The doctor's report had been misdirected to another law office and was received by plaintiff's counsel on September 16, 1993. Plaintiff made a motion to renew on November 9, 1993 based on the affidavit of William Kite, Jr., a neurosurgeon. Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that plaintiff should have been prepared to oppose the summary judgment motion given the imminent trial date.
A motion to renew should be granted upon a showing of new facts where the moving party sets forth a justifiable excuse for not presenting the facts to the court (Kambour v. Farrar, 188 A.D.2d 719, 590 N.Y.S.2d 586). Plaintiff has satisfied his burden on the motion to renew. Supreme Court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff's ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dyer v. Planning Bd. of Town of Schaghticoke
...at the time the original motion was made (see, Wagman v. Village of Catskill, supra, at 775, 623 N.Y.S.2d 20; Seifts v. Markle, 211 A.D.2d 848, 849, 620 N.Y.S.2d 620). Here, Brickyard's failure to previously discover the Town's alleged failure to file a zoning map resulted from its lack of ......
-
M & R Ginsburg Llc v. Orange Canyon Dev. Co. Llc
...plaintiff met its burden on renewal of presenting a justifiable excuse for failing to provide them earlier ( see Seifts v. Markle, 211 A.D.2d 848, 849, 620 N.Y.S.2d 620 [1995]; Winch v. Yates Am. Mach. Co., 205 A.D.2d 1001, 1003, 613 N.Y.S.2d 980 [1994], lv. dismissed 84 N.Y.2d 1027, 623 N.......
-
Hurrell-Harring v. State
...not yet occurred ( see M & R Ginsburg, LLC v. Orange Canyon Dev. Co., LLC, 84 A.D.3d at 1472, 923 N.Y.S.2d 226; Seifts v. Markle, 211 A.D.2d 848, 849, 620 N.Y.S.2d 620 [1995] ). Thus, to the extent set forth above, plaintiffs were entitled to renewal of their motion to compel defendant to c......
-
Estate of Wiggins, Matter of
...the motion for reconsideration was a motion for renewal and the order denying that motion is appealable (see, Seifts v. Markle, 211 A.D.2d 848, 620 N.Y.S.2d 620). Based upon the parties' insistence that the recent Court of Appeals decision in the companion case of Matter of Stortecky v. Maz......