Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Johnny McNEILL, plaintiff, v. Ian C. SANDIFORD, appellant, Errol McLeggan, respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Ian C. Sandiford appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated March 5, 1999, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Errol McLeggan which was for summary judgment dismissing all cross claims insofar as asserted against him. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated July 1, 1999, as denied the motion of the defendant Ian C. Sandiford for renewal (see, CPLR 5517[a][1] ).
ORDERED that the order dated March 5, 1999, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated July 1, 1999, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
In this action arising out of a multi-vehicle automobile accident, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Errol McLeggan which was for summary judgment dismissing all cross claims. The defendant Errol McLeggan demonstrated that the plaintiff's vehicle came to a complete stop behind him without coming into contact with his vehicle before the plaintiff's vehicle was then struck by the vehicle operated by the defendant Ian C. Sandiford (see, Ner v. Celis, 245 A.D.2d 278, 279, 664 N.Y.S.2d 481; Lehmann v. Sheaves, 231 A.D.2d 687, 647 N.Y.S.2d 557; Chamberlin v. Suffolk County Labor Dept., 221 A.D.2d 580, 634 N.Y.S.2d 202).
In addition, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to renew. The appellant failed to establish a reasonable excuse as to why the additional facts offered by him were not submitted on the original motion (see, Guerrero v. Dublin Up Corp. of N.Y., 260 A.D.2d 435, 687 N.Y.S.2d 721; Matter of Barnes v. State of New York, 159 A.D.2d 753, 552 N.Y.S.2d 57).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 27, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)