The Third Department determined a motion to renew based upon newly discovered evidence and a motion to depose additional knowledgeable witnesses (from the municipality) should have been granted:
To be entitled to renewal, plaintiffs were required to provide new facts that would change the prior determination as well as a justifiable excuse for not providing such facts earlier (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]…). “While we generally decline to disturb the decision to grant or deny a motion to renew, we will do so if there was an abuse of discretion” … . * * *
Renewal of that part of plaintiffs’ motion which sought the production of knowledgeable witnesses should have, to a large extent, also been granted. “While a municipality, in the first instance, has the right to determine which of its officers or employees with knowledge of the facts may appear for an examination before trial, a plaintiff may demand the production of additional witnesses, upon a showing that the representative already deposed had insufficient knowledge or was otherwise inadequate”… . Hurrel-Harring… v State of New York…, 517132, 3rd Dept 12-19-13