Doe v. Doe
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendants’ motion seeking leave to renew. Defendants *933failed to establish that the purported "new” material was not in existence or was unavailable at the time the initial motion was made and to proffer a valid excuse for failing to submit that material in support of their initial motion (see, Lindsay v Funtime, Inc., 184 AD2d 1036; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, lv denied 56 NY2d 507). Moreover, the "new” material was cumulative of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Foley v. RocheAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- Walsh v. Staten Island Obstetrics & Gynecology Associates, P.C.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Doe v. RoeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Lindsay v. Funtime, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Loe v. Town of ThomastonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1991
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Welch Foods, Inc. v. WilsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Computerized Medical Imaging Equipment, Inc. v. Diasonics Ultrasound, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Cohen Swados Wright Hanifin Bradford & Brett, L. L. P. v. BaygerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Kopra v. AquinoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Conley v. Central Square School DistrictAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.