Legal Opinion
Schoen v. Rochester Gas & Electric, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided September 30, 1997PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion of plaintiff to renew his prior motion for summary judgment. Even assuming, arguendo, that testimony from examinations before trial conducted after the prior motion was denied constitutes newly discovered evidence, we conclude that the court properly determined that the newly discovered evidence did not warrant a different result (see, Laxrand Constr. Corp. v R.S.C.A. Realty Corp., 135 AD2d 685, 686, lv denied 71 NY2d 804; Matter of Banow v Simins, 53 AD2d 542). That evidence…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- S. J. Capelin Associates, Inc. v. Globe Manufacturing Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1974
- Laxrand Construction Corp. v. R.S.C.A. Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Banow v. SiminsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- Mickelson v. BabcockAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
3Cited by8 opinions
- Knepka v. TallmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Sovik v. Healing NetworkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Dietzen v. Aldi Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Miniero v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 2007
- Bautista v. 85th Columbus Corp.New York Supreme Court · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.