GIARDINA v. PARKVIEW COURT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC (2001)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Sharon GIARDINA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PARKVIEW COURT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., Robert Carney, a/k/a Robert Cramer, and Claire Carney, a/k/a Claire Cramer, Defendants-Respondents.
Robert Carney, a/k/a Robert Cramer, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. O.M. Scott & Sons Company, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
Parkview Court Homeowners' Association, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Sibley Real Estate Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Decided: June 08, 2001

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, HAYES, KEHOE and BURNS, JJ.

Theodore J. Burns, for plaintiff-appellant. Thomas S. Lane, for defendant-respondent Parkview Court Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. Norman E.S. Greene, defendants-respondents for Robert Carney a/k/a Robert Cramer, and Claire Carney, a/k/a Claire Cramer. Susan C. Roney, for third-party defendant-respondent O.M. Scott & Sons Co. Jill L. Yonkers, for third-party defendant-respondent Sibley Real Estate Services, Inc.

Plaintiff appeals from an order denying her motion seeking leave to reargue or renew the motion and cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. As a preliminary matter, we note that, on this “combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew”, plaintiff failed to “identify separately and support separately each item of relief sought” (CPLR 2221[f] ). In any event, insofar as the order denied that part of the motion seeking reargument, it is not appealable (see, CPLR 5701[a][2] [viii]; Empire Ins. Co. v. Food City, 167 A.D.2d 983, 984, 562 N.Y.S.2d 5). Supreme Court properly denied the motion insofar as it sought renewal. Although plaintiff submitted new information in support of the motion, consisting of medical reports and the notes of a treating physician, she failed to provide a reasonable justification for her failure to include that new information at the time of the original motion and cross motions (see, CPLR 2221[e][3]; Delvecchio v. Bayside Chrysler Plymouth Jeep Eagle, 271 A.D.2d 636, 638, 706 N.Y.S.2d 724; Smith v. Isaac Heating & Air Conditioning [appeal No. 1], 265 A.D.2d 821, 696 N.Y.S.2d 737).

Appeal from order insofar as it denied reargument unanimously dismissed and order affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network