Brilliantine v. East Hampton Fuel Oil Corp.

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing claims for diminution in value of real property and artwork allegedly resulting from an oil spill. The court held that the defendant failed to justify a successive summary judgment motion and, in any event, conflicting expert opinions created triable issues of fact concerning the alleged damages.

Holdings

1. Successive motions for summary judgment generally should not be entertained absent newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause, and a party may not base a later motion on facts or arguments that could have been submitted on the original motion.
2. Summary judgment was properly denied because conflicting expert opinions presented triable issues of fact concerning the diminution in value of plaintiffs' real property and artwork.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendant's successive motion for summary judgment should have been entertained absent newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause.
2. Whether defendant established that the evidence supporting its later motion was unavailable during the earlier summary-judgment motion and could not have been submitted through alternative evidentiary means.
3. Whether conflicting expert opinions concerning diminution in value created triable issues of fact precluding summary judgment.

Disposition

affirmed