Tapia v. Van Rossum

Summary

The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order denying the plaintiff leave to renew and, upon reargument, adhering to the denial of her motion for summary judgment on liability in a personal-injury action arising from a pedestrian-vehicle collision. The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable justification for not presenting purportedly new evidence earlier and failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.

Holdings

1. Leave to renew was properly denied because the plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable justification for not including the purported new evidence in support of her original motion.
2. The plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on liability because her submissions failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying leave to renew where the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable justification for not submitting the purported new evidence with her original motion.
2. Whether the Supreme Court properly adhered upon reargument to its denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability because the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Disposition

affirmed