In the Matter of Jolieth Nelson v. Allstate Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 11 May 2010 |
| Citation | 73 A.D.3d 929,901 N.Y.S.2d 329,2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 04200 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Jolieth NELSON, appellant,v.ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jolieth Nelson, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se.Stern & Montana, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Richard Montana of counsel), for respondent.REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., STEVEN W. FISHER, ANITA R. FLORIO, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rucheslman, J.), dated March 3, 2009, which denied her motion for leave to renew her motion, in effect, to extend, nunc pro tunc, her time to serve the petition, which had been determined in an order of the same court dated September 26, 2006.
ORDERED that the order dated March 3, 2009, is affirmed, with costs.
A motion for leave to renew must be (1) based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination, and (2) set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion ( see CPLR 2221[e][2], [3]; Novosiadlyi v. James, 70 A.D.3d 793, 794, 894 N.Y.S.2d 521; Baldwin v. Mateogarcia, 66 A.D.3d 806, 806–807, 886 N.Y.S.2d 618). Here, the new facts submitted by the petitioner did not warrant a change in the Supreme Court's original determination, and the petitioner did not offer a reasonable justification for her failure to present those facts when she made her initial motion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petitioner's motion for leave to renew ( see generally Development Strategies Co., LLC, Profit Sharing Plan v. Astoria Equities, Inc., 71 A.D.3d 628, 896 N.Y.S.2d 396; Matter of Korman v. Bellmore Pub. Schools, 62 A.D.3d 882, 884, 879 N.Y.S.2d 194).
The petitioner's remaining contentions either refer to matter dehors the record or are otherwise not properly before us on this appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doviak v. Finkelstein & Partners, LLP
...set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” ( Matter of Nelson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 73 A.D.3d 929, 929, 901 N.Y.S.2d 329; see Simpson v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 A.D.3d 389, 391, 850 N.Y.S.2d 629). As this Court has recently stated......
-
Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc.
...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., 73 A.D.3d 929, 929, 901 N.Y.S.2d 329 ). The new or additional facts presented “ either must have not been known to the party seeking renewal or may, in th......
-
Carbone v. Betz (In re Carbone)
...was for leave to renew his opposition to Betz's summary judgment motion ( seeCPLR 2221[e][2]; Matter of Nelson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 73 A.D.3d 929, 901 N.Y.S.2d 329;Coccia v. Liotti, 70 A.D.3d 747, 753, 896 N.Y.S.2d 90;[101 A.D.3d 870]Gonzalez v. Vigo Constr. Corp., 69 A.D.3d 565, 566, 892 ......
-
Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc.
...set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (Matter of Nelson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 73 A.D.3d 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......