Gurman v. Fotiades

• Decision Date: 20 December 2011
• Citation: 934 N.Y.S.2d 816,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 09275,90 A.D.3d 840
• Parties: Helen GURMAN, et al., respondents, v. Daphne M.N. FOTIADES, et al., appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 09275

90 A.D.3d 840

934 N.Y.S.2d 816

Helen GURMAN, et al., respondents,

v.Daphne M.N. FOTIADES, et al., appellants.

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

Dec. 20, 2011.

Daphne M.N. Fotiades, Great Neck, N.Y., appellant pro se.

David Moskoff, Great Neck, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Malen & Associates, P.C., Westbury, N.Y. (Jeffrey Wolstein of counsel), for respondents.

In an action to recover on two instruments for the payment of money only, brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the defendants separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pastoressa, J.), dated November 30, 2009, which denied their motion for leave to renew their prior motion to vacate a judgment of the same court (Klein, J.), entered August 13, 2003, which, upon their default in opposing the motion, was in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $20,000.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for leave to renew their prior motion to vacate a judgment entered upon their default in opposing the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. The defendants failed to present “new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2211[e][2]; see *817 Levitin v. A.R.B. Mgt. Servs., Inc., 48 A.D.3d 759, 851 N.Y.S.2d 378).

RIVERA, J.P., HALL, AUSTIN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.