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.
IN RE: STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, petitioner-respondent, v. Jeanne COLANGELO, et al., respondents-respondents; National Continental Insurance Company, proposed additional respondent-appellant, et al., proposed additional respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, National Continental Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Carey, J.H.O.), entered October 16, 2006, which denied its motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2) to vacate a judgment of the same court entered October 12, 2005, granting the petition and permanently staying the arbitration, based on newly-discovered evidence.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
To succeed on a motion to vacate a judgment on the ground of newly-discovered evidence, the movant must establish, among other things, that the evidence could not have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence (see CPLR 5015[a][2]; Roslyn Sav. Bank v. Kline, 17 A.D.3d 441, 792 N.Y.S.2d 332; Kleet Lbr. Co., Inc. v. Saw Horse Remodelers, Inc., 13 A.D.3d 414, 415, 787 N.Y.S.2d 64; Feldstein v. Rounick, 295 A.D.2d 398, 399-400, 743 N.Y.S.2d 735; Zaccaria v. Russell, 288 A.D.2d 468, 733 N.Y.S.2d 878; Contractors Cas. & Sur. Co. v. 535 Broadhollow Realty, 276 A.D.2d 738, 715 N.Y.S.2d 165; Exclusive Envelope Corp. v. Tal-Spons Corp., 187 A.D.2d 555, 555-556, 591 N.Y.S.2d 329). Here, the appellant failed to establish that the evidence that it relied on could not have been timely discovered through the exercise of due diligence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2) to vacate the judgment entered October 12, 2005.
The appellant's remaining contentions either are without merit, are barred by the law of the case doctrine (see Stone v. Stone, 39 A.D.3d 534, 535, 831 N.Y.S.2d 728; Matter of Suzuki-Peters v. Peters, 37 A.D.3d 726, 830 N.Y.S.2d 735; Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D., 18 A.D.3d 551, 795 N.Y.S.2d 260; Jacobs v. Macy's E., Inc., 17 A.D.3d 318, 320, 792 N.Y.S.2d 574; Palumbo v. Palumbo, 10 A.D.3d 680, 682, 782 N.Y.S.2d 106), or need not be reached in light of our determination.
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: October 16, 2007
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)