CPLR R. 2221
(e) Motion for Leave to Renew
Abayev v Zia, 2009 NY Slip Op 08565 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)
A motion for leave to renew "shall be based upon new 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 Ramirez v Khan, 60 AD3d 748; Dinten-Quiros v Brown, 49 AD3d 588; Madison v Tahir, 45 AD3d 744). "Although a motion for leave to renew generally must be based on newly-discovered facts, this requirement is a flexible one, and a court has the discretion to grant renewal upon facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion, provided that the movant offers a reasonable justification for the failure to submit the additional facts on the original motion" (Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 58 AD3d 727, 728).
Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff leave to renew his opposition to the motion of the defendant Karen Mazuer for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. The plaintiff submitted additional evidence and offered a reasonable justification for his failure to submit that additional evidence at the time of his opposition to the motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 2221[e]). However, upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination granting the motion for summary judgment.
Sajid v Glenwood Holding, LLC, 2009 NY Slip Op 09016 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)
We affirm the denial of renewal on the ground that the defendants failed to offer a reasonable justification for failing to present the affidavit of the corporate defendants' principal in their opposition to the plaintiffs' original motion (see CPLR 2221[e]; Barnett v Smith, 64 AD3d 669, 670; Reshevsky v United Water N.Y., Inc., 46 AD3d 532, 533; St. Claire v Gaskin, 295 AD2d at 337).
The bold is mine.
bruteforcelawyer.com 