Bank of America, N.A., Usa v. Friedman
Decision Date | 09 October 2007 |
Docket Number | 2006-10086. |
Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 07646,44 A.D.3d 696,842 N.Y.S.2d 721 |
Parties | BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., USA, Respondent, v. RESA R. FRIEDMAN, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is well established that a motion for leave to renew must be "based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination," and that the movant must state a "reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]; see Yarde v New York City Tr. Auth., 4 AD3d 352 [2004]; Riccio v Deperalta, 274 AD2d 384 [2000]).
Since the defendant's motion for leave to renew was not based upon any such new facts, the Supreme Court properly denied her motion.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ferdico v. Zweig
...justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion[s]” (CPLR 2221[e][2], [3]; see Bank of Am., N.A., USA v. Friedman, 44 A.D.3d 696, 842 N.Y.S.2d 721; Yarde v. New York City Tr. Auth., 4 A.D.3d 352, 353, 771 N.Y.S.2d 185; Johnson v. Marquez, 2 A.D.3d 786, 788–789, 770 N......
- Bank of America, N.A., Usa v. Friedman
- Barchella v. Barchella
-
Dilorenzo v. Estate Motors, Inc.
... ... appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Friedman, J.H.O.), entered August 21, 2006, which, after a nonjury trial, and upon ... ...