Sutter v. Wakefern Food Corp.
| Decision Date | 19 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | 2009-00205 |
| Citation | 2010 NY Slip Op 506,892 N.Y.S.2d 764,69 A.D.3d 844 |
| Parties | GAEL SUTTER, Appellant, v. WAKEFERN FOOD CORP., Doing Business as SHOPRITE SUPERMARKET, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied, and the plaintiff's motion for the admission, pro hac vice, of Florida attorney Antoinette R. Appel to appear on her behalf as cocounsel in this action is granted.
The plaintiff alleged that, as she retrieved a box of dry cereal from a display at the defendant's supermarket, she was struck in the head by an object. She alleged that the display was stacked too high above the floor for stability, and that she saw several boxes of the cereal on the ground after she was struck in the head.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant in 2002. In an amended order dated October 6, 2005, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In an order dated August 18, 2006, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for leave to renew, on both a "procedural and substantive basis." In July 2008 the defendant again moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff then separately moved for the admission, pro hac vice, of Florida attorney Antoinette R. Appel to appear on her behalf as cocounsel in this action. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion and, in effect, denied the plaintiff's motion as academic.
Generally, successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause (see Kimber Mfg., Inc. v Hanzus, 56 AD3d 615 [2008]; Crane v JAB Realty, LLC, 48 AD3d 504 [2008]; Williams v City of White Plains, 6 AD3d 609 [2004]; Davidson Metals Corp. v Marlo Dev. Co., 262 AD2d 599 [1999]). Here, the Supreme Court should not have entertained the defendant's latest motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vinar v. Litman
...judgment should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause” ( Sutter v. Wakefern Food Corp., 69 A.D.3d 844, 845, 892 N.Y.S.2d 764;see Coccia v. Liotti, 101 A.D.3d 664, 666, 956 N.Y.S.2d 63;Powell v. Trans–Auto Sys., 32 A.D.2d 650, 300 N.Y.S.2......
-
Tingling v. C.I.N.H.R., Inc.
...v. Litman, 110 A.D.3d 867, 868, 972 N.Y.S.2d 704; Coccia v. Liotti, 101 A.D.3d 664, 666, 956 N.Y.S.2d 63; Sutter v. Wakefern Food Corp., 69 A.D.3d 844, 845, 892 N.Y.S.2d 764). Here, there was no showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause to warrant entertaining that bran......
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Elshiekh
...v. BMSL Mgt., LLC, 175 A.D.3d 474, 103 N.Y.S.3d 846 ; Vinar v. Litman, 110 A.D.3d 867, 868, 972 N.Y.S.2d 704 ; Sutter v. Wakefern Food Corp., 69 A.D.3d 844, 845, 892 N.Y.S.2d 764 ). Here, the Supreme Court should not have entertained Residential's second motion for leave to renew which was,......
-
Hillrich Holding Corp. v. BMSL Mgmt., LLC
...should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause" ( Sutter v. Wakefern Food Corp. , 69 A.D.3d 844, 845, 892 N.Y.S.2d 764 ; see Vinar v. Litman , 110 A.D.3d 867, 868, 972 N.Y.S.2d 704 ; Coccia v. Liotti , 101 A.D.3d 664, 666, 956 N.Y.S.2d 63 ......