Simon v. Foye
Decision Date | 14 March 2022 |
Docket Number | Index 151510/2021 |
Citation | 2022 NY Slip Op 30848 (U) |
Parties | BARRY SIMON, PICTURE THE HOMELESS, INC..URBAN JUSTICE CENTER-SAFETY NET PROJECT, Petitioner, v. PATRICK FOYE, SARAH FEINBERG, METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, MANHATTAN AND BRONX SURFACE TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY Respondent. |
Court | New York Supreme Court |
DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 20, 21, 22, 25, 26 were read on this motion to/for REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION
Upon the foregoing documents, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion, pursuant to CPLR 2221 (a) of petitioners Barry Simon, Picture the Homeless, Inc. and Urban Justice Center - Safety Net Project (motion sequence number 002) is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and it is further
ORDERED that counsel for respondents shall serve a copy of this order, along with notice of entry, on all parties within ten (10) days.
In this Article 78 proceeding, individual petitioner Barry Simon (Simon) and corporate co-petitioners Picture the Homeless Inc. (PHI) and Urban Justice Center - Safety Net Project (UJC; together, petitioners), move pursuant to CPLR 2221 (a) for leave to renew/reargue the court's June 17, 2021 decision that denied their petition and dismissed this matter (motion sequence number 002). For the following reasons, this motion is denied
The court discussed the facts of this case at length in its earlier decision and need not repeat them now. For the purposes of this motion, the portions of the court's decision that petitioners seek to challenge provided as follows:
See NYSCEF document 18. Respondents[1] served and filed a notice of entry of the court's decision on June 17, 2021 - the same day the decision was issued. Id. NYSCEF document 19. Petitioners thereafter filed this motion on July 15, 2021. With the service of opposition and reply papers, this matter is now fully submitted (motion sequence number 002).
Petitioners designate their motion as seeking "leave to renew and/or reargue their verified petition." See notice of motion, Wachs affirmation, ¶ 2. However, CPLR 2221 requires moving parties to make different showings in support of motions to renew versus motions to reargue.
Pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e) (2) and (3), "a motion for leave to renew . . . shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination and . . . shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (emphasis added). Such a motion must be based on "material facts which, although extant at the time of the original motion, were not then known to the party seeking renewal and, consequently, were not placed before the court." See Matter of Beiny, 132 A.D.2d 190, 209-210 (1st Dept 1987), citing Foley v Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568 (1st Dept 1979). By contrast, under CPLR 2221 (d) (2), "[a] motion for leave to reargue . . . shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion."
Here, petitioners' motion does not refer to any "new facts" that might support a request for leave to renew under CPLR 2221 (e). There is no affidavit of merits from a party competent to discuss the facts of this case, and there is no documentary evidence annexed to it. Instead, petitioners only offer the affirmation of their attorney and their memorandum of law, both of which raise legal arguments (discussed below), but neither of which contains any factual allegations. See notice of motion, Wachs affirmation; petitioners' mem of law. Since this motion does not allege any "new facts . . . that would change the prior determination," the court denies so much of it a seeks relief pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e) for failing to meet the statute's standard of review. Accordingly, the court finds that petitioner's motion should be construed as a request for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d).
As noted, a motion to reargue may be granted only upon a showing '"that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or the law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision.'" William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 A.D.2d 22, 27 (1st Dept 1992), quoting Schneider v Solowey, 141 A.D.2d 813 (2d Dept 1988). Settled appellate case law holds that "a motion for leave to reargue 'is not designed to provide an unsuccessful party with successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided, or to present arguments different from those originally presented.'" Jaspar Holdings, LLC v Gotham Trading Partners #1, LLC, 186 A.D.3d 582, 584-585 (2d Dept 2020), citing Degraw Constr. Group, Inc. v. McGowan Bldrs., Inc., 178 A.D.3d 772, 773 (2d Dept 2019); Matter of Anthony J. Carter, DDS, P.C v Carter, 81 A.D.3d 819, 820 (2d Dept 2011), quoting McGill v Goldman, 261 A.D.2d 593, 594 (2d Dept 1999). Here, petitioners argue that:
"the court overlooked or...
To continue reading
Request your trial