Carrillo v. PM Realty Group
Opinion of the Court
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated October 24, 2003, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to reargue and, upon reargument, denied their prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which had been granted in an order of the same court dated May 22, 2003.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Motions for reargument are addressed to the sound discretion of the court which decided the prior 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 (see Long v Long, 251 AD2d 631 [1998]; Rodney v New York Pyrotechnic Prods. Co., 112 AD2d 410 [1985]). Here, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting reargument.
To prove a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendant either created the condition that caused the accident or had actual or constructive no
The defendants’ remaining contentions are raised for the first time on appeal and thus are not properly before this Court (see DeLeon v New York City Tr. Auth., 5 AD3d 531 [2004]; Engel v Jacobs, 297 AD2d 657 [2002]). H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.