CPLR R. 2221(e) Motion for Leave to Renew
Carullo v Pistilli Constr. & Dev. Corp., 2009 NY Slip Op 05841 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)
A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new or additional facts
"not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior
determination" (CPLR 2221[e][2]), and "shall contain reasonable
justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior
motion" (CPLR 2221[e][3]; see O'Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 631; see also O'Dell v Caswell, 12 AD3d 492; Rizzotto v Allstate Ins. Co., 300 AD2d 562; Williams v Fitzsimmons, 295
AD2d 342). The plaintiff's motion for leave to renew was properly
denied since he failed to set forth a reasonable justification for his
failure to present the alleged new facts on the prior motion (see O'Connell v Post, 27 AD3d at 631).
NYCTL 1999-1 Trust v Surf Coney Is., Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 05306 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that
branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to renew. The
plaintiffs failed to present a reasonable justification for their
failure to present certain "new facts" on the original motion and cross
motion (CPLR 2221[e][3]; see O'Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 631; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472). In any event, those facts would not have changed the prior determinations (see CPLR 2221[e][2]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d at 472).
bruteforcelawyer.com 