In the Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins.
| Decision Date | 20 January 2009 |
| Docket Number | 2008-02151. |
| Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 00377,872 N.Y.S.2d 146,58 A.D.3d 727 |
| Parties | In the Matter of ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Although a motion for leave to renew generally must be based on newly-discovered facts, this requirement is a flexible one, and a court has the discretion to grant renewal upon facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion, provided that the movant offers a reasonable justification for the failure to submit the additional facts on the original motion (see Matter of Gold v Gold, 53 AD3d 485, 487 [2008]; Matter of Surdo v Levittown Pub. School Dist., 41 AD3d 486 [2007]; Heaven v McGowan, 40 AD3d 583 [2007]; Allstate Ins. Co. v Davis, 23 AD3d 418 [2005]). Nevertheless, "[a] motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation" (Elder v Elder, 21 AD3d 1055, 1055 [2005]; see Lardo v Rivlab Transp. Corp., 46 AD3d 759 [2007]; Matter of Leyberman v Leyberman, 43 AD3d 925 [2007]).
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying its motion for leave to renew. The petitioner's motion was based upon evidence that either was in its possession at the time its petition to confirm the arbitration award was brought, or could have been obtained earlier with due diligence, and it did not sufficiently justify, inter alia, its failure to attach a copy of the award it was seeking to confirm to its petition. Moreover, the petitioner failed to offer a reasonable justification for its eight-month delay in moving for leave to renew to correct various deficiencies in the petition, which included the failure to submit a copy of the arbitration award (see Christ v Solomon, 6 AD3d 569 [2004]; Matter of Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. v Singh, 297 AD2d 349 [2002]; Cole-Hatchard v Grand Union, 270 AD2d 447, 448 [2000]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowe v. Nycpd
...in making their first factual presentation” ( Elder v. Elder, 21 A.D.3d 1055, 1055, 802 N.Y.S.2d 457; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 58 A.D.3d 727, 872 N.Y.S.2d 146). A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts, not offered on the original application, “that ......
-
K.L. v. I.L.
...on the original motion" (see Castor v Cuevas, 137 A.D.3d 734 [2d Dept 2016] quoting Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 58 A.D.3d 727 [2d Dept 2009]; citing Matter of Osorio v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 112 A.D.3d 831 [2d Dept 2013]; Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v Ghaness, 100 A......
-
Aronov v. Shimonov
...A.D.3d 1055, 1055, 802 N.Y.S.2d 457;see Rose v. Levine, 98 A.D.3d 1015, 1015–1016, 951 N.Y.S.2d 880;Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 58 A.D.3d 727, 728, 872 N.Y.S.2d 146). A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts, not offered on the prior motion that would c......
-
Dervisevic v. Dervisevic
...making their first factual presentation” ( Elder v. Elder, 21 A.D.3d 1055, 1055, 802 N.Y.S.2d 457; see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 58 A.D.3d 727, 872 N.Y.S.2d 146). A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts, not offered on the original application, “that......