Sheridan v Very, Ltd

Sheridan v Very, Ltd. 2008 NY Slip Op 08548 [56 AD3d 305] November 13, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Karen Sheridan, Respondent,
v
Very, Ltd., Doing Business as Au Bar, Appellant, and 625 Management Committee et al., Respondents.

—[*1] Molod Spitz & DeSantis, P.C., New York (Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas M. Smith, New York, for Karen Sheridan, respondent.

Thomas D. Hughes, New York (David D. Hess of counsel), for 625 Management Committee, Sheila Daley and 625 Madison Associates, L.P., respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered January 3, 2008, which granted plaintiff's motion for reargument, and, upon reargument, denied defendants' previously granted motion to dismiss the complaint for plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery, and reinstated the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in granting reargument and reinstating the complaint. Plaintiff's moving papers clarified certain facts relating to the extent of her compliance with discovery, including the court's directives concerning nonparty witnesses and the filing of a note of issue, that her prior submissions and opposition to defendants' motion had obscured (see Rodney v New York Pyrotechnic Prods. Co., 112 AD2d 410 [1985]). Even if plaintiff's motion cannot be said to fall precisely within the category of either renewal or reargument, the court's disposition was well within the exercise of its discretion (see Sciascia v Nevins, 130 AD2d 649, 650 [1987]). [*2]

We have considered appellant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P. Mazzarelli, Saxe, Nardelli and Buckley, JJ.