Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Ghaness
Decision Date | 07 November 2012 |
Citation | 100 A.D.3d 585,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07265,953 N.Y.S.2d 301 |
Parties | DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY, respondent, v. Narharry GHANESS, appellant, et al., defendants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Christopher Thompson, West Islip, N.Y., for appellant.
Fein, Such & Crane, LLP , for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Narharry Ghaness appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Elliot, J.), dated April 6, 2011, which denied his motion for leave to renew and reargue his motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated March 3, 2009, entered upon his default in answering or appearing.
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.
A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts, not offered on the original motion “that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221[e][2]; see Rowe v. NYCPD, 85 A.D.3d 1001, 1003, 926 N.Y.S.2d 121;Development Strategies Co., LLC, Profit Sharing Plan v. Astoria Equities, Inc., 71 A.D.3d 628, 896 N.Y.S.2d 396). The new or additional facts either must have not been known to the party seeking renewal or may, in the Supreme Court's discretion, be based on facts known to the party seeking renewal at the time of the original motion ( see Dervisevic v. Dervisevic, 89 A.D.3d 785, 786–787, 932 N.Y.S.2d 347;Rowe v. NYCPD, 85 A.D.3d at 1003, 926 N.Y.S.2d 121). However, in either instance, a “reasonable justification” for the failure to present such facts on the original motion must be presented (CPLR 2221[e][3] ). Here, the “new evidence” offered by the appellant consisted of information which the appellant knew or should have known to have existed at the time of his motion to vacate, and he failed to set forth a reasonable justification as to why he failed to submit this information in the first instance ( see Dervisevic v. Dervisevic, 89 A.D.3d at 786–787, 932 N.Y.S.2d 347;Rowe v. NYCPD, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc.
...642, 644–45, 9 N.Y.S.3d 105 [2d Dept.2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 2221[e][2], [3] ; Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Ghaness, 100 A.D.3d 585, 585–586, 953 N.Y.S.2d 301 ; Jovanovic v. Jovanovic, 96 A.D.3d 1019, 1020, 947 N.Y.S.2d 554 ; Matter of Nelson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 7......
-
Verizon N.Y., Inc. v. Supervisors of Town of N. Hempstead
...of the original motion’ " ( Hernandez v. Nwaishienyi, 148 A.D.3d 684, 687, 48 N.Y.S.3d 467, quoting Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Ghaness, 100 A.D.3d 585, 586, 953 N.Y.S.2d 301 ; see Buongiovanni v. Hasin, 162 A.D.3d at 738, 79 N.Y.S.3d 251 ; Armstrong v. Armstrong, 162 A.D.3d 621, 622, 79 N.Y......
-
Burro v. Kang
...not offered on the original motion, "that would change the prior determination" ( CPLR 2221[e][2] ; see Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Ghaness, 100 A.D.3d 585, 585–586, 953 N.Y.S.2d 301 ). "The new or additional facts either must have not been known to the party seeking renewal or may, in the S......
-
Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc.
...929, 929, 901 N.Y.S.2d 329 ; see Central Mtge. Co. v. Resheff, 136 A.D.3d 962, 963, 26 N.Y.S.3d 323 ; Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Ghaness, 100 A.D.3d 585, 585–586, 953 N.Y.S.2d 301 ; Jovanovic v. Jovanovic, 96 A.D.3d 1019, 1020, 947 N.Y.S.2d 554 ). The new or additional facts presented “eith......