Kim v. State Street Hospitality, LLC
Opinion of the Court
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants
Ordered that the order dated March 17, 2011, is affirmed, with costs.
The “new” evidence submitted in support of the appellants’ motion for leave to renew the plaintiff’s prior cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action would not have changed the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Grossman v New York Life Ins. Co., 90 AD3d 990, 992 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion for leave to renew their opposition to the plaintiffs prior cross motion (see Matter of Choy v Mai Ling Lai, 91 AD3d 772 [2012]). Balkin, J.P., Belen, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.