Jones v 170 E. 92nd St. Owners Corp.

Annotate this Case
Jones v 170 E. 92nd St. Owners Corp. 2010 NY Slip Op 00376 [69 AD3d 483] January 19, 2010 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Jean Graham Jones et al., Appellants,
v
170 East 92nd Street Owners Corp. et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

—[*1] Law Offices of Lee M. Nigen & Assoc., P.C., Brooklyn (Lee M. Nigen of counsel), for appellants.

Gartner & Bloom, P.C., New York (Arthur P. Xanthos of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered February 9, 2009, which, in an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by mold in plaintiff tenants' apartment, insofar as appealable, denied plaintiffs' motion to renew defendant building owners' prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

No appeal lies from the portion of the order on appeal that denied reargument (CPLR 2221; Stratakis v Ryjov, 66 AD3d 411 [2009]). With respect to renewal, the only purportedly new evidence submitted by plaintiffs was a doctor's affidavit responsive to the portion of the motion court's prior order stating that defendants' medical evidence was unrefuted, and opining that the mold in plaintiffs' apartment had contributed to the sinusitis and respiratory problems for which he was treating one of the two plaintiffs. Putting aside that this affidavit was inadvertently omitted from plaintiffs' moving papers and first submitted only in their reply (but cf. Tomaino v 209 E. 84 St. Corp., 68 AD3d 527, 529 [2009]), plaintiffs' attorney's bald statement that the doctor's affidavit was not included in their opposition to the prior motion because "it was not made available to [p]laintiffs until this time" does not satisfy plaintiffs' burden "to show due diligence in attempting to obtain the statement before the [*2]submission of the prior motion" (see Taub v Art Students League of N.Y., 63 AD3d 630, 631 [2009]; CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Acosta, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.