King v IG Second Generation Partners, L.P.

[*1] King v IG Second Generation Partners, L.P. 2010 NY Slip Op 51290(U) [28 Misc 3d 132(A)] Decided on July 21, 2010 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected in part through August 4, 2010; it will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 21, 2010
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Hunter, Jr., J.
570828/09

Sheila King, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

IG Second Generation Partners, L.P. and 1 Bldg. Co., Inc. d/b/a Wembly Management Co., Inc., Defendants-Respondents.

Plaintiff appeals from 1) that portion of an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered July 19, 2007, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and 2) an order (same court and Judge), entered September 12, 2008, which denied plaintiff's motion to reargue and renew the aforesaid order.

Per Curiam.

Orders (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered July 19, 2007 and September 12, 2008, insofar as appealed from and appealable, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Civil Court correctly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff lacked standing to bring this action, since plaintiff failed to properly list the DHCR overcharge claim as an asset on her bankruptcy petition and failed to produce evidence in admissible form demonstrating that the bankruptcy trustee knowingly and intelligently abandoned the claim (see generally Bromley v Fleet Bank, 240 AD2d 611 [1997]). Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for renewal, since plaintiff did not offer a reasonable justification for her failure to present the purportedly new evidence in support of her initial motion (see CPLR 2221[e][3]; see also Chelsea Piers Mgt. v Forest Elec. Corp., 281 AD2d 252 [2001]). In any event, the purportedly new evidence would not have altered the initial determination (see CPLR 2221[e][3]; Estate of Brown v Pullman Group, 60 AD3d 481 [2009]). To the extent plaintiff seeks review of the denial of her motion to reargue, no appeal lies from such denial (see D'Andrea v Hutchins, 69 AD3d 541 [2009]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: July 21, 2010