| Sutter v Wakefern Food Corp. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00506 [69 AD3d 844] |
| January 19, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Gael Sutter, Appellant, v Wakefern Food Corp., DoingBusiness as Shoprite Supermarket, Respondent. |
—[*1] McKeegan & Shearer, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Douglas Shearer of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), entered November 20, 2008, which grantedthe defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, in effect, denied, asacademic, her separate motion for the admission, pro hac vice, of Florida attorney Antoinette R.Appel to appear on her behalf as cocounsel in this action.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied, and the plaintiff's motion for theadmission, pro hac vice, of Florida attorney Antoinette R. Appel to appear on her behalf ascocounsel in this action is granted.
The plaintiff alleged that, as she retrieved a box of dry cereal from a display at thedefendant's supermarket, she was struck in the head by an object. She alleged that the displaywas stacked too high above the floor for stability, and that she saw several boxes of the cereal onthe ground after she was struck in the head.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant in 2002. In an amended orderdated October 6, 2005, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint. In an order dated August 18, 2006, the Supreme Court denied thedefendant's motion for leave to renew, on both a "procedural and substantive basis." In July 2008the defendant again moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff thenseparately moved for the admission, pro hac vice, of Florida attorney Antoinette R. Appel toappear on her behalf as cocounsel in this action. The Supreme Court granted the defendant'smotion and, in effect, denied the plaintiff's motion as academic.
Generally, successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained, absent ashowing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause (see Kimber Mfg., Inc. v Hanzus, 56AD3d 615 [2008]; Crane v JABRealty, LLC, 48 AD3d 504 [2008]; Williams v City of White Plains, 6 AD3d 609 [2004];Davidson Metals Corp. v Marlo Dev. Co., 262 AD2d 599 [1999]). Here, the SupremeCourt should not have [*2]entertained the defendant's latestmotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint since the defendant did not submit anynewly discovered evidence, or present other sufficient cause (see Kimber Mfg., Inc. v Hanzus, 56 AD3d 615 [2008]; Selletti v Liotti, 45 AD3d 669[2007]; Williams v City of WhitePlains, 6 AD3d 609 [2004]; Davidson Metals Corp. v Marlo Dev. Co., 262AD2d 599 [1999]).
The plaintiff's motion for the admission, pro hac vice, of Florida attorney Antoinette R.Appel to appear on her behalf as cocounsel in this action should have been granted (see22 NYCRR 520.11 [a]). Fisher, J.P., Miller, Eng and Hall, JJ., concur.