1009 Second Avenue Assocs. v. Benenson Capital Co., 272 A.D.2d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2000). · Go Syfert
1009 Second Avenue Assocs. v. Benenson Capital Co., 272 A.D.2d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
1009 Second Avenue Associates
v.
Benenson Capital Company, , (And a Third-Party Action.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 25, 2000.
Published opinion
272 A.D.2d 254
2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6108
Published

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner-Gans, J.), entered March 17, 2000, which, in an action to recover property damages sustained by plaintiffs’ building during the construction of defendants’ adjacent building, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ motion to renew their motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants’ motion to renew was properly denied absent a reasonable excuse for their not having included the new evidence, mainly consisting of deposition testimony of their own representatives, in the original motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). Moreover, as the IAS Court also held, the new evidence raises issues of credibility inappropriate for consideration on a motion for summary judgment. We have considered and rejected defendants’ other arguments. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.