Anthoine v. Lord, Bissell & Brook

295 A.D.2d 293, 744 N.Y.S.2d 666, 2002 N.Y. Slip Op. 05403

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

Edith ANTHOINE, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

LORD, BISSELL & BROOK, etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.

June 27, 2002.

Stewart F. Hancock, Jr. & Alan J. Pierce, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Fredric W. Yerman, Norman C. Kleinberg, for Defendants-Respondents.

*293 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 15, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs' motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly denied renewal based on the lack of a sufficient explanation for plaintiffs' failure to submit the purportedly new evidence on the original motion, which was occasioned by a tactical decision of counsel (see, *294 Rockefeller Univ. v. Tishman Constr. Corp. of New York, 240 A.D.2d 341, 343, 659 N.Y.S.2d 460, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 803, 668 N.Y.S.2d 558, 691 N.E.2d 630; cf., Framapac Delicatessen, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 249 A.D.2d 36, 670 N.Y.S.2d 491). In any event, the motion court was correct in its observation that, even if the proffered evidence were considered, it would provide no basis for changing the original determination.

We have considered plaintiffs' other arguments and find them unavailing.

ANDRIAS, J.P., BUCKLEY, ROSENBERGER, WALLACH and GONZALEZ, JJ., concur.

N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 2002.

References

Anthoine v. Lord, Bissell & Brook, 284 A.D.2d 233, 726 N.Y.S.2d 553, 2001 N.Y. Slip Op. 05641 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. Jun 21, 2001) (NO. 4572, 4573)

Leave to Appeal Denied by

Anthoine v. Lord, 97 N.Y.2d 607, 764 N.E.2d 394, 738 N.Y.S.2d 290 (N.Y. Dec 20, 2001) (TABLE, NO. 1-10, 1260)