Tardif v. Hauppauge Office Park Assocs., LLC

• Citation: 184 A.D.3d 887,124 N.Y.S.3d 226 (Mem)
• Decision Date: 24 June 2020
• Docket Number: Index No. 22883/12,2017–04142
• Parties: John TARDIF, et al., Respondents, v. HAUPPAUGE OFFICE PARK ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

184 A.D.3d 887

124 N.Y.S.3d 226 (Mem)

John TARDIF, et al., Respondents,

v.HAUPPAUGE OFFICE PARK ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

2017–04142

Index No. 22883/12

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—January 2, 2020

June 24, 2020

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (John A. Hsu, Gregory I. Freedman, and Lindsay J. Kalick of counsel), for appellants.

Cartier, Bernstein, Auerbach & Steinberg, P.C., Patchogue, N.Y. (Kenneth A. Auerbach and Linda Marie Boswell of counsel), for respondents.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Hauppauge Office Park Associates, LLC, and Colin Development, LLC, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Peter H. Mayer, J.), entered March 9, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to reargue their opposition to that branch of those defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, which had been granted in an order of the same court entered March 8, 2016, and, upon reargument, in effect, vacated that portion of the order entered March 8, 2016, and thereupon, denied that branch of those defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order entered March 9, 2017, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On January 6, 2011, the plaintiff John Tardif (hereinafter the injured plaintiff), an employee of nonparty Amica Insurance Company, was working in his cubicle office when an unsecured five-drawer metal file cabinet fell on him. Thereafter, the injured plaintiff, and his wife suing derivatively, commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries the injured plaintiff allegedly sustained as a result of the accident against, among others, the defendants Hauppauge Office Park Associates, LLC, and Colin Development, LLC (hereinafter together the Hauppauge defendants), the owner and property manager, respectively, of the office building where the accident occurred. By order entered March 8, 2016, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the motion of the Hauppauge defendants which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved, among other things, for leave to reargue their opposition to that branch of the Hauppauge defendants' motion. By order entered March 9, 2017, the court, inter alia, granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to reargue, and upon reargument, denied that branch of the Hauppauge defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Hauppauge defendants appeal.

" ‘Motions for reargument are addressed to the sound discretion of the court which decided the original motion and may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision’ " ( Bueno v. Allam, 170 A.D.3d 939, 940, 96 N.Y.S.3d 623, quoting Ito v. 324 E. 9th St. Corp., 49 A.D.3d 816, 817, 857 N.Y.S.2d 578 ; see CPLR 2221...