Jones v. 636 Holding Corp.
N.Y. App. Div.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Wesco Ins. Co. v. Nunez Dental Servs., P.C. N.Y. App. Div.
- 2026875 Riv. View Realty LLC v. Marzullo N.Y. App. Term.
- 2026Apple Bank for Sav. v. Prime Rok Real Estate LLC N.Y. App. Div.
- 2025Elizon Master Participation Trust I v. Ali N.Y. App. Div.
- 2025Orange Orch. Props., LLC v. Gentry Unlimited, Inc. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
- 2025Denson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
- 2024322 W. 47th St. HDFC v. Loo N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
- 2024Bah v. City of New York N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
- 2024Priester v. Phanor N.Y. App. Div.
- 2021McLaughlin v. Arch Ins. Co. N.Y. App. Div.
Cites 2 cases
- Taub v. Art Students League
- Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Albertini
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Duvaugh Jones, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Shinillis Cline, et al., Respondents, v 636 Holding Corp. et al., Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered October 8, 2009, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained without a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient justification (see Phoenix Four v Albertini, 245 AD2d 166 [1997]). In this action for personal injury resulting from a courtyard shooting, the “new” evidence presented on the follow-up motion for summary relief, consisting of an affidavit from a forensic pathologist, was clearly available to the mov-ants earlier, and thus “should be rejected for failure to show due diligence in attempting to obtain the statement before the submission of the prior motion” (Taub v Art Students League of N.Y., 63 AD3d 630, 631 [2009]).
Even considering the substance of this later motion, defendants failed to establish entitlement to judgment on the issue of liability. Defendants contend that the court should have credited the opinion of their expert witness that despite the infant plaintiffs deposition account of what happened, the forensic evidence precluded the possibility he could have been shot by any intruders on their property. However, plaintiffs produced, in opposition to the motion, an affidavit from their own forensic pathologist disputing the conclusion offered by defendants’ expert. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Renwick, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.