Renna v. Gullo
Citation | 19 A.D.3d 472,2005 NY Slip Op 05047,797 N.Y.S.2d 115 |
Decision Date | 13 June 2005 |
Docket Number | 2004-05464. |
Parties | GREGORY RENNA et al., Appellants, v. ANDREA GULLO et al., Defendants, and CHI KIN LEUNG et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A motion for leave to renew must be "based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination," and must set forth a "reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Yarde v New York City Tr. Auth., 4 AD3d 352 [2004]; Riccio v DePeralta, 274 AD2d 384 [2000]). While it may be within the court's discretion to grant renewal upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the original motion (see J.D. Structures v Waldbaum, 282 AD2d 434 [2001]; Cronwall Equities v International Links Dev. Corp., 255 AD2d 354 [1998]), 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" (see Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328, 329 [1996] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also O'Dell v Caswell, 12 AD3d 492 [2004]; Hart v City of New York, 5 AD3d 438 [2004]; Carota v Wu, 284 AD2d 614 [2001]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to renew as they failed to offer a reasonable justification as to why the allegedly new facts were not submitted earlier (see Daria v Beacon Capital Co., 299 AD2d 312 [2002]; Malik v Campbell, 289 AD2d 540 [2001]; Doumanis v Conzo, 265 AD2d 296 [1999]). In any event, those facts would not have changed the prior determination.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Singh v. Avis Rent, Inc.
...Room Steak House, Inc., 112 A.D.3d at 799, 977 N.Y.S.2d 340;Sobin v. Tylutki, 59 A.D.3d 701, 702, 873 N.Y.S.2d 743;Renna v. Gullo, 19 A.D.3d 472, 473, 797 N.Y.S.2d 115). The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendants, in support of that branch of their motion which was for leave......
-
Cando v. Ajay Gen. Contracting Co.
...in making their first factual presentation (see Worrell v. Parkway Estates, LLC, 43 A.D.3d at 437, 840 N.Y.S.2d 817 ; Renna v. Gullo, 19 A.D.3d 472, 797 N.Y.S.2d 115 ). Indeed, the Supreme Court lacks discretion to grant renewal where the moving party omits a reasonable justification for fa......
-
Doviak v. Finkelstein & Partners, LLP
...892 N.Y.S.2d 194, quoting Matter of Surdo v. Levittown Pub. School Dist., 41 A.D.3d 486, 486, 837 N.Y.S.2d 315; see Renna v. Gullo, 19 A.D.3d 472, 473, 797 N.Y.S.2d 115). Nevertheless, a motion for leave to renew “is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due dil......
-
Coccia v. Liotti
...chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation’ ” ( Renna v. Gullo, 19 A.D.3d 472, 473, 797 N.Y.S.2d 115, quoting Rubinstein v. Goldman, 225 A.D.2d 328, 329, 638 N.Y.S.2d 469; cf. CPLR 2221[d][2] [a motion for leave to reargue ......