CPLR R. 2221(e) “Retention of New Expert not Legitimate Basis for Renewal”

CPLR R. 2221(e) Motion for Leave to Renew

Burgos v Rateb, 2009 NY Slip Op 05738 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)

The Supreme Court properly
denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to
renew, as the plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable justification for
her failure to present the evidence offered in support of renewal in
her opposition to that branch of Shahin's original motion which was for
summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against
him (see CPLR 2221[e]; Orlando v City of New York, 21 AD3d 357).
The retention of a new expert is not a legitimate basis for renewal;
renewal "is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not
exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation"
(Welch Foods v Wilson, 247 AD2d 830, 831; see Reshevsky v United Water N.Y., Inc., 46 AD3d 532; Mundo v SMS Hasenclever Maschinenfabrik, 224 AD2d 343, 344).

The bold is mine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: