Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

Stipo v. Carpenito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 21, 2012

92 A.D.3d 864; 939 N.Y.2d 508

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Wall Street Mortgage Bankers, Ltd. v. Rodgers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Yellow Book of New York, L.P. v. Cataldo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Yellow Book of New York, L.P. v. Cataldo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Matter of Franco Belli Plumbing & Heating & Sons, Inc. v. New York City School Constr. Auth. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Washington Mutual Bank v. Wade (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)

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

*865In a prior order dated December 7, 2010, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the complaint after rejecting, as “insufficient to defeat [the] plaintiffs motion,” the “conclusory allegations” that the defendant had asserted in opposition. A money judgment dated January 18, 2011, in the principal sum of $40,000, was thereafter entered. The defendant then made the postjudgment motion now under review in which, relying on documents that predated the judgment, he sought to have the judgment vacated pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2).

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant failed to demonstrate any entitlement to relief pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2). The defendant failed adequately to explain why these recently offered documents could not have been produced much sooner, at the time of the prior motion for summary judgment (see generally Ferdico v Zweig, 82 AD3d 1151 [2011]). In any event, the purportedly newly discovered evidence would not have “produced a different result” on the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (CPLR 5015 [a] [2]; see generally Matter of American Comm. for Weizmann Inst. of Science v Dunn, 10 NY3d 82, 96 [2008]; Cizler v Cizler, 19 AD2d 819 [1963]).

Accordingly, the order appealed from must be affirmed. Mastro, A.PJ., Angiolillo, Eng and Cohen, JJ, concur.

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