Legal Opinion
Tri-State Consumer Insurance v. Singh
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided August 19, 2002PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for leave to renew, as it offered no reasonable excuse as to why the evidence submitted with the motion was not previously submitted in opposition to the petition (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Matter of Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v Nevelus, 292 AD2d 381; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Taddeo, 285 AD2d 503). Additionally, even if the appellant’s excuse was reasonable, it failed to explain the nearly five-month delay in moving to renew (see Cole-Hatchard v Grand Union, 270 AD2d 447; Dankner v Szurzan & Dorf, 226 AD2d 669; Elgem, Inc. v National Gypsum,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Cole-Hatchard v. Grand UnionAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Dankner v. Szurzan & Dorf, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Allstate Insurance v. TaddeoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Colonial Penn Insurance v. NevelusAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Elgem, Inc. v. National Gypsum, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
3Cited by5 opinions
- Allstate Insurance v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Sherman v. PiccioneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- 145 E. 16th St. LLC v. SpencerAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 2019
- Exeter Holding, Ltd. v. Morway Builders & Developers, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Neeman v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024