Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. 170 East 92nd Street Owners Corp.

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


January 19, 2010

JEAN GRAHAM JONES, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
170 EAST 92ND STREET OWNERS CORP., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. [AND A THIRD-PARTY ACTION]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered February 9, 2009, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by mold in plaintiffs tenants' apartment, insofar as appealable, denied plaintiffs' motion to renew defendants building owners' prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Acosta, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

103156/07

No appeal lies from the portion of the order on appeal that denied reargument (CPLR 2221; Stratakis v Ryjov, 66 AD3d 411 [2009]). With respect to renewal, the only purportedly new evidence submitted by plaintiffs was a doctor's affidavit responsive to the portion of the motion court's prior order stating that defendants' medical evidence was unrefuted, and opining that the mold in plaintiffs' apartment had contributed to the sinusitis and respiratory problems for which he was treating one of the two plaintiffs. Putting aside that this affidavit was inadvertently omitted from plaintiffs' moving papers and first submitted only in their reply (but cf. Tomaino v 209 E. 84 St. Corp., __ AD3d __, 2009 NY Slip Op 9283, *2 [Dec. 15, 2009]), plaintiffs' attorney's bald statement that the doctor's affidavit was not included in their opposition to the prior motion because "it was not made available to Plaintiffs until this time" does not satisfy plaintiffs' burden "to show due diligence in attempting to obtain the statement before the submission of the prior motion" (CPLR 2221[e][3]; see Taub v Art Students League of N.Y., 63 AD3d 630 [2009]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20100119

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.