Preview:

Friedman v Voloshin 2008 NY Slip Op 31512(U) May 28, 2008 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 0601128/2007 Judge: Walter B. Tolub Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

[* 1 ]

SCANNED ON 61312008

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YOR
PRFSFNT-

{/

NEW YORK COUNTY

. ,,PART

Index Number, 601 128/2007

FRIEDMAN, WILLIAM S. vs . VOLOSHIN, JOHN
SEQUENCE NUMBER :
## 004

1

RENEW / RECONSIDERATION

Affld$tka
Anawering Affidavita Replylng Affidavits

- Exhlblts

'-

Exhibits

...

'I

I

-

Cross-Motion:

r l

Yes

0 No
IS DECIED

Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion

IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM DEClSlOrd

Check one:

FINAL DISPOSITION

NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

Check if appropriate:

17 1

DO NOT POST

0 REFERENCE

[* 2 ]

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 15
_-----__--___---___-_____I______________

X

WILLIAM FRIEDMAN
Index No.601128/07
P l a i n t i f E,
Mtn Seq.004

-againstJ O H N VOLOSHIN

Defendant.

T h i s is a motion by the D e f e n d a n t to v a c a t e t h i s c o u r t ' s March 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 decision w h i c h granted

Plaintiff a d e f a u l t judgment f o r Defendant's failure t o comply
w i t h a Special Referee's

discovery o r d e r .
Facts

As s t a t e d int his court's prior order, Plaintiff brought t h e
u n d e r l y i n g action t o recover $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 claiming t h a t t h e Defendant

solicited a demand loan from t h e P l a i n t i f f a n d t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t
stopped p a y m e n t o f t h e c h e c k .
T h e D e f e n d a n t moved to dismiss t h e

complaint on the grounds of l a c k of jurisdiction.

T h i s court

r e f e r r e d t h e issue o f jurisdiction to a Special Referee a n d h e l d

the balance of the motion in abeyance pending a decision by the
Referee.
T h e Special Referee in this matter d i r e c t e d D e f e n d a n t

to p r o v i d e s p e c i f i c documentary d i s c l o s u r e about his N e w York

contacts a n d to submit t o

a

deposition in a d v a n c e o f t h e hearing

as to w h e t h e r h i s Court has jurisdiction over the D e f e n d a n t a n d t h e claims at issue.

The Defendant failed to comply w i t h t h e

[* 3 ]

Special Referee's o r d e r a n d t h i s court g r a n t e d Plaintiff`s motion

f o r a d e f a u l t judgment p u r s u a n t to CPLR 3126(3) on March 1 3 ,

2008.

D e f e n d a n t seeks t o v a c a t e the order so t h a t t h e m a t t e r may

be decided on the m e r i t s .

Discussion

The o n l y q u e s t i o n on a motion to reargue i s whether the
c o u r t o v e r l o o k e d or misapprehended fact or l a w in determining a

p r i o r motion.

Its p u r p o s e is not t o s e r v e a s a v e h i c l e to permit

t h e unsuccessful p a r t y t o a r g u e once a g a i n t h e very same

questions previously decided. ( F o l e v v . R o c h e , 6 8 A.D.2d 558, 418
NYS2d 5 8 8 ,

593-94

[ I x L Dept. 1 9 7 9 1 ) c i t i n g Fos d i c k v . Town of

Hemsstead, 126 NY 651).

Moreover, a morion for l e a v e to r e a r g u e

may not include " a n y m a t t e r s of fact not o f f e r e d on the p r i o r

motion." (CPLR

Download 2008_31512.pdf

New York Law