Welch Foods, Inc. v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 04 February 1998 |
| Parties | , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 918 WELCH FOODS, INC., a Cooperative, Appellant, v. Ralph W. WILSON, Peter G. Nixon, Louis C. Habig, Robert C. Scofield, as Members of Board of Public Utilities of Village of Westfield, Board of Public Utilities of Village of Westfield And Village of Westfield, Respondents. VILLAGE OF WESTFIELD, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. MOGEN DAVID WINE CORPORATION and Growers Co-operative Grape Juice Company, Third-Party Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Phillips, Lytle, Hitchcock, Blaine & Huber by Alan Wishoff, Buffalo, for Plaintiff-Appellant Welch Foods, Inc.
Magavern, Magavern & Grimm, LLP by Richard Moore, Buffalo, for Respondent.
Lawrence C. Brown, Hamburg, for Third-Party Defendant-Respondent Mogen David Wine Co.
Before PINE, J.P., and HAYES, WISNER, BALIO and FALLON, JJ.
Supreme Court erred in granting defendants' motion to renew and reargue and vacating its prior order granting plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment (see, CPLR 2221; Doe v. Roe, 210 A.D.2d 932, 620 N.Y.S.2d 666). Although defendants purported to seek renewal and reargument of the cross motion, they in actuality sought only renewal, based upon affidavits and documentary evidence submitted by a new expert. Among the documents were a 1984 Federal Environmental Protection Agency manual, and comparisons of the Village of Westfield's water treatment plant user charges with those of other municipalities. Defendants failed to establish that "the purported 'new' material was not in existence or was unavailable at the time the initial motion was made and to proffer a valid excuse for failing to submit that material in support of their initial motion" (Doe v. Roe, supra, at 933, 620 N.Y.S.2d 666; see, Brookview Homeowners' Assn. v. Mark IV Constr. Co., 178 A.D.2d 967, 967-968, 579 N.Y.S.2d 776; Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568, 418 N.Y.S.2d 588). To the extent that the new materials were matters of public record available before the court issued its decision on the cross motion, moreover, they could not serve as a proper basis for a motion to renew (see, City of White Plains v. Deruvo, 159 A.D.2d 534, 552 N.Y.S.2d 399). Nor is the recruitment of a new expert a legitimate basis for renewal; renewal " 'is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation' " (Mundo v. SMS...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welch Foods, Inc. v. Wilson
...the October 1995 order on the ground that the evidence submitted by defendants was not a proper basis for renewal (Welch Foods v. Wilson, 247 A.D.2d 830, 669 N.Y.S.2d 109). Our decision involved only the procedural aspects of the motion for renewal and thus was not a determination on the me......
-
Heltz v. Bruce S. Barratt & Erie Logistics, LLC
...chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” ( Welch Foods v. Wilson, 247 A.D.2d 830, 831, 669 N.Y.S.2d 109 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Wilkins, 97 A.D.3d 527, 528, 948 N.Y.S.2d 3......
-
Andrews v. New York City Hous. Auth.
...19 A.D.3d at 473, 797 N.Y.S.2d 115; Yarde v. New York City Tr. Auth., 4 A.D.3d 352, 353, 771 N.Y.S.2d 185; Welch Foods v. Wilson, 247 A.D.2d 830, 830–831, 669 N.Y.S.2d 109; Levitt v. County of Suffolk, 166 A.D.2d at 423, 560 N.Y.S.2d 487; City of White Plains v. Deruvo, 159 A.D.2d 534, 534,......
-
GMAC Mortg., LLC v. Spindelman
...841, 983 N.Y.S.2d 437, lv. dismissed in part and denied in part 24 N.Y.3d 1217, 4 N.Y.S.3d 599, 28 N.E.3d 34 ; Welch Foods v. Wilson, 247 A.D.2d 830, 830, 669 N.Y.S.2d 109 ). Inasmuch as defendants failed to establish "a ‘reasonable justification for the failure to present [the new] facts o......