Sheridan v Very, Ltd.

2008 NY Slip Op 08548 [56 AD3d 305]

November 13, 2008

Appellate Division, First Department

As corrected through Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Karen Sheridan, Respondent, v Very, Ltd., Doing Businessas 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 withdiscovery, and reinstated the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

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

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