Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

Anthoine v. Lord, Bissell & Brook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 27, 2002

295 A.D.2d 293; 744 N.Y.S.2d 666; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6865

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Hernandez v. St. Stephen of Hungary School (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 15, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs’ motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly denied renewal based on the lack of a sufficient explanation for plaintiffs’ failure to submit the purportedly new evidence on the original motion, which was occasioned by a tactical decision of counsel (see, Rockefeller *294Univ. v Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 240 AD2d 341, 343, lv denied 91 NY2d 803; cf., Framapac Delicatessen v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 249 AD2d 36). In any event, the motion court was correct in its observation that, even if the proffered evidence were considered, it would provide no basis for changing the original determination.

We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Wallach and Gonzalez, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.