Choy v. Mai Ling Lai
| Decision Date | 17 January 2012 |
| Citation | 936 N.Y.S.2d 564,91 A.D.3d 772,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00369 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Tonny CHOY, appellant, v. MAI LING LAI, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREDavid Schrager, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellant.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffman, J.), dated March 14, 2011, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Parisi, S.M.), dated December 28, 2010, which denied his motion, inter alia, for leave to renew his prior motion to vacate a support order of the same court (Parisi, S.M.), dated June 26, 2008, entered upon his consent, which *565 had been denied in an order of the same court dated June 18, 2010.
ORDERED that the order dated March 14, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221[e][2] ) and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[e][3]; see Barnett v. Smith, 64 A.D.3d 669, 670, 883 N.Y.S.2d 573; Chernysheva v. Pinchuck, 57 A.D.3d 936, 937, 871 N.Y.S.2d 621). Here, that branch of the father's motion which was for leave to renew his motion to vacate the support order dated June 26, 2008, was properly denied by the Support Magistrate, as the allegedly new facts offered would not have changed the prior determination ( see CPLR 2221[e][2] ).
The father's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rakha v. Pinnacle Bus Servs.
...facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[e][2], [3]; see DeMarquez v. Gallo, 94 A.D.3d 1039, 1040, 943 N.Y.S.2d 169;Matter of Choy v. Mai Ling Lai, 91 A.D.3d 772, 936 N.Y.S.2d 564;Ferdico v. Zweig, 82 A.D.3d 1151, 1153, 919 N.Y.S.2d 521). The requirement that a motion for leave to renew must b......
-
K.L. v. I.L.
...v Pinnacle Bus Servs., 98 A.D.3d 657 [2d Dept 2012]; DeMarquez v Gallo, 94 A.D.3d 1039 [2d Dept 2012]; Matter of Choy v. Mai Ling Lai, 91 A.D.3d 772 [2d Dept 2012]). "The new or additional facts either must have not been known to the party seeking renewal or may, in the Supreme Court's disc......
-
Demarquez v. Gallo
...reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[e][2], [3]; see Matter of Choy v. Mai Ling Lai, 91 A.D.3d 772, 936 N.Y.S.2d 564; Ferdico v. Zweig, 82 A.D.3d 1151, 1153, 919 N.Y.S.2d 521; Barnett v. Smith, 64 A.D.3d 669, 670, 883 N.Y.S.2d 573; C......
-
Jovanovic v. Jovanovic
...such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[e][2], [3]; see DeMarquez v. Gallo, 94 A.D.3d 1039, 943 N.Y.S.2d 169;Matter of Choy v. Mai Ling Lai, 91 A.D.3d 772, 936 N.Y.S.2d 564). Although the requirement that a motion for renewal must be based on new facts is a flexible one ( see DeMarquez v......