Brooklyn Welding Corp. v. Chin
| Decision Date | 03 February 1997 |
| Parties | In the Matter of BROOKLYN WELDING CORPORATION, Appellant, v. David CHIN, etc., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bythewood & Associates, Garden City, (David A. Bythewood, of counsel), for appellant.
Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel, New York City, (Leonard Koerner, Lewis S. Finkelman, and Ellen B. Fishman, of counsel), for respondents.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and O'BRIEN, THOMPSON and PIZZUTO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York, dated March 26, 1991, which found that the petitioner had defaulted under several contracts with the City, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), entered May 30, 1995, which denied its motion to, in effect, reargue its petition.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the petitioner made a motion pursuant to CPLR 2221 denominated as one for leave to renew its petition to review a determination of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York which found that the petitioner had defaulted under several contracts with the City. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petitioner's motion.
It is well settled that a motion for leave to renew must be supported by new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time of a prior motion, were not known to the party seeking renewal, and, consequently, not made known to the court (see, Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568, 418 N.Y.S.2d 588; CPLR 2221). Here, the petitioner's motion was based on a claim of newly-discovered evidence, namely, a series of documents obtained through discovery in a separate action, primarily consisting of correspondence between the respondents concerning negotiations of the subject contracts with the petitioner. However, the substance of these documents presented neither new nor additional facts not known to the petitioner at the time of the CPLR article 78 proceeding. Rather, they merely represented summaries of negotiations in which the petitioner had played an active and important role, and thus already had substantive knowledge of (see, William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v. Kassis, 182 A.D.2d 22, 27, 588 N.Y.S.2d 8. Indeed, the alleged "new" facts were precisely the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fandy Corp. v. Lung-Fong Chen
...of the defendant's motion was, in effect, for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Matter of Brooklyn Welding Corp. v. Chin, 236 A.D.2d 392, 653 N.Y.S.2d 631; see also, Hopkins v. City of New York, 248 A.D.2d 441, 669 N.Y.S.2d 667; Castellitto v. Atlantic & Pac. Co., 244 ......
-
People v. Harrison, 2009 NY Slip Op 31477(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 4/21/2009)
...the moving party at the time of the original motion, but which support the grounds raised in the original motion. Brooklyn Welding Corp. V. Chin, 236 A.D.2d 392 (2d Dep't 1997); Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568 (1st Dep't 1979). Renewal is not available where the facts upon which the moti......
-
People v Royers, 2008 NY Slip Op 33545(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 11/7/2008)
...the moving party at the time of the original motion, but which support the grounds raised in the original motion. Brooklyn Welding Corp. V. Chin, 236 AD2d 392 (2d Dep't 1997); Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568 (1st Dep't 1979). Renewal is not available where the facts upon which the motion......
-
2952 Victory Blvd. Pump Corp. v. Bhatty, Index No.: 151082/2018
...v. Cameb, 5 A.D.3d 438, 439, 773 N.Y.S.2d 121, 122 (App. Div. 2d Dept., 2004) (quoting Matter of Brooklyn Welding Corp. v. Chin, 236 A.D.2d 392, 653 N.Y.S.2d 631 (App. Div. 2d Dept., 1997)). A motion to for leave to renew can be granted based on facts known to the movant at the time of the ......