Goetschius v. Bd. Edu. Greenburgh Eleven
| Citation | 721 N.Y.S.2d 271,281 AD2d 418 |
| Parties | (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001) In the Matter of John Goetschius, et al., respondents, v. Board of Education of the Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School District, et al., appellants (and other titles). 2000-03613 Argued - |
| Decision Date | 19 January 2001 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Lord Bissell & Brook, New York, N.Y. (Timothy P. Coon of counsel), and Ohrenstein & Brown, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Manfred Ohrenstein of counsel), for appellants (one brief filed).
James R. Sandner, New York, N.Y. (Conrad W. Lower of counsel), for respondents.
In four related proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review determinations made at meetings of the Board of Education of the Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School District on December 9, 1996, March 10, 1997, June 18, 1997, and July 24, 1997, respectively, the appeal, as limited by the appellants' brief, is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered March 27, 2000, as denied their motions for leave to renew their prior motions to dismiss the proceedings.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"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" (Matter of Brooklyn Welding Corp. v Chin, 236 A.D.2d 392; see, Foley v Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568; CPLR 2221). Leave to renew should be denied unless the moving party offers a reasonable explanation as to why the additional facts were not submitted on the original application (see, Cannistra v Gibbons, 224 A.D.2d 570, 571; Inuk Lee v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 226 A.D.2d 226, 227; see also, Mangine v Keller, 182 A.D.2d 476, 477). Here, the appellants failed to provide the Supreme Court with a reasonable excuse why the additional facts were not presented at the tune of the original applications and were not previously brought to the attention of the court. Therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellants' motion which was for leave to renew (see, Motts v Cohen, 264 A.D.2d 764; Petito v Verrazano Contr. Co., 246 A.D.2d 636).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial