30 Clinton Place Owners, Inc. v. Singh

• Decision Date: 05 August 2015
• Citation: 13 N.Y.S.3d 910 (Mem),2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06427,131 A.D.3d 467
• Parties: 30 CLINTON PLACE OWNERS, INC., respondent, v. Manjit SINGH, etc., et al., appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

131 A.D.3d 467

13 N.Y.S.3d 910 (Mem)

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06427

30 CLINTON PLACE OWNERS, INC., respondent

v.Manjit SINGH, etc., et al., appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Aug. 5, 2015.

Sheak & Korzun, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Timothy J. Korzun of counsel), for appellants.

Finger & Finger, White Plains, N.Y. (Carl L. Finger of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), dated August 6, 2014, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 2221(e) for leave to renew their prior motion, inter alia, to vacate their default in answering the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“A motion for leave to renew must (1) be based upon new facts not offered on a prior motion that would change the prior determination, and (2) set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (Kletnieks v. Hertz, 54 A.D.3d 660, 661–662, 863 N.Y.S.2d 487 ; see CPLR 2221[e] ; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hertz Corp., 43 A.D.3d 907, 841 N.Y.S.2d 617 ). Here, the defendants' motion for leave to renew, which was made two years after their original motion to vacate their default, was not based upon new facts and, in any event, failed to set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to submit the purportedly new facts on the prior motion (see CPLR 2221[e] ; Zito v. Jastremski, 84 A.D.3d 1069, 925 N.Y.S.2d 91 ; Swedish v. Beizer, 51 A.D.3d 1008, 859 N.Y.S.2d 668 ; Renna v. Gullo, 19 A.D.3d 472, 797 N.Y.S.2d 115 ). Nor is there any merit to the defendants' contention that the motion for leave to renew should have been granted “in the interest of substantial justice” (see Red Zone LLC v. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 118 A.D.3d 581, 582, 988 N.Y.S.2d 588, lv. granted 24 N.Y.3d 910, 2014 WL 6609121 ). The defendants' remaining contentions either need not be reached in light of our determination, are without merit, or are based on matter dehors the record.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for leave to renew.

MASTRO, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and BARROS, JJ., concur.