Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006

Crystal House Manor, Inc. v. Totura

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 30, 2006

29 A.D.3d 933; 815 N.Y.S.2d 467

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Matheson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Nesterenko v. Starrett City Associates, L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Phillips v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Phillips v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Abarca v. Clarks Shoes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
New York Telephone Co. v. Supervisor of Town (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Bank of New York v. Segui (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Tricoche v. Warner Amex Satellite Entertainment Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Hlenski v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)

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

In an action, inter alia, to set aside an allegedly fraudulent conveyance of real property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated May 3, 2005, which denied their motion, in effect, for leave to renew that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for a protective order denying the defendants’ request to conduct DNA testing of the plaintiff James K. Rogers, which had been determined in an order of the same court dated February 1, 2005.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion, in effect, for leave to renew, since they failed to establish either that the alleged new evidence was previously unavailable, or that there was a reasonable justification for their failure to present the proffered additional facts in opposition to the original motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]; see e.g. Gohrig v Porcelli, 17 AD3d 314 [2005]; Hannalyn Realty Co. v McLaughlin, 10 AD3d 409 [2004]; Hart v City of New York, 5 *934AD3d 438 [2004]; Ortiz v Tusa, 300 AD2d 288 [2002]). Moreover, the proffered “new evidence” failed to negate the speculative nature of the defendants’ request to conduct DNA testing of the plaintiff James K. Rogers. Adams, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.