TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Champlain Valley Electric Supply Co. v. Miller

Champlain Valley Electric Supply Co., Inc. v. Bert Miller

Champlain Valley Elec. Supply Co. v. Miller, 89 A.D.2d 1036 (1982)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
September 16, 1982
Citations
89 A.D.2d 1036454 N.Y.S.2d 3501982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18304

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Dier, J.), entered October 19, 1981 in Clinton County, which granted defendant Bert Miller’s motion to reargue a prior motion for summary judgment decided in favor of plaintiff and which further denied plaintiff’s original motion for summary judgment against defendant Bert Miller individually. Plaintiff commenced an action against defendant Bert Miller individually and Bersan Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Miller Electric, to recover money owing for electrical supplies purchased from plaintiff. A dispute arose as to whether Bert Miller was individually liable for the purchases. This question was resolved in favor of plaintiff on a motion for summary judgment and Special Term granted judgment against all defendants by decision dated July 1,1981. On July 27,1981, defendant Bert Miller moved for reargument of the original motion. Special Term granted this motion and then denied summary judgment in favop of Bert Miller individually. This appeal by plaintiff ensued. There should be a reversal. The motion for reargument was in fact a motion to renew since it was supported by defendant Bert Miller’s affidavit setting forth new facts and evidence which was available at the time the original motion *1037 was argued. However, no explanation was presented of why the facts supplied on the motion to renew were not presented on the earlier motion as is required CFoley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568 ; Matter of Hooker v Town Bd. of Town of Guilderland, 60 AD2d 684 ; Ecco High Frequency Corp. v Amtorg Trading Corp., 274 App Div 982 , affg 81 NYS2d 897 ). Accordingly, the order granting reargument and denying the motion for summary judgment against defendant Bert Miller individually should be reversed, and the original order granting summary judgment against all defendants reinstated. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, motion by defendant Bert Miller denied, and original order granting summary judgment against all defendants reinstated. Sweeney, J.P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1985: 21987: 11988: 11989: 21995: 119852026peak 1985 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Whitbeck v. Erin's Isle, Inc.109 A.D.2d 1032 (1985)
  2. DeFreitas v. Board of Education of City of Mount Vernon District No. 416129 A.D.2d 672 (1987)
  3. Gulledge v. Adams108 A.D.2d 950 (1985)
  4. Martini v. Asmann146 A.D.2d 571 (1989)
  5. Livanos v. Campo144 A.D.2d 652 (1988)
  6. Burleson v. Callanan Industries, Inc.151 A.D.2d 949 (1989)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558 (1979) 477
Hooker v. Town Bd., 60 A.D.2d 684 (1977) 30
Bardons & Oliver, Inc. v. Amtorg Trading Corp., 274 A.D. 982 (1948) 21

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list