You are here: / / Motion to Renew Was Not Based Upon a Change in the Applicable Law—Motion...

Motion to Renew Was Not Based Upon a Change in the Applicable Law—Motion Court Had Simply Ignored the Controlling Precedent—Therefore the Motion Was Actually a Motion to Reargue, the Denial of Which Is Not Appealable

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined that defendants’ motion, which was labeled a motion to renew, was actually a motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable.  A motion to renew can be based upon a change in the law since the first motion was determined.  However, in this case, the trial judge who denied the original underlying motion, specifically refused to follow the appellate precedent in her department (re: the availability of nonpecuniary damages in a legal malpractice action). Because the underlying law did not change, but rather the law was simply ignored by the trial judge, there was no change in the law which could serve as a basis of a motion to renew. The legal malpractice action stemmed from defense counsel’s failure to raise the speedy trial defense in a criminal matter.  The plaintiff was freed after14 years of imprisonment on the basis of defense counsel’s failure.  D’Alessandro v Carro, 2014 NY Slip Op 06246, 1st Dept 9-18-14

 

You might also like
DeBour Criteria Met in Street Encounter Leading to Arrest; Statements Tainted by Miranda Violations Did Not Preclude Admission of Statement Made Seven Hours Later
Re: Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims Against the Directors of a Corporation, the Plaintiffs Failed to Rebut the Presumptions of Loyalty, Prudence and Good Faith Under the Business Judgment Rule
SUPPRESSION OF JUVENILE’S PROVIDING FALSE NAME AND DATE OF BIRTH TO POLICE OFFICER PROPERLY DENIED; JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION BASED UPON THE FALSE PEDIGREE INFORMATION PROPER.
Defendant’s Waiver of 12-Person Jury Upheld
Determinative, Purely Legal Arguments Raised for the First Time on Appeal May Be Considered by the Appellate Court
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A WORK AREA ON THE 16TH FLOOR USED FOR RENOVATION WORK ON THE 41ST FLOOR, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE 16TH FLOOR WAS A CONSTRUCTION AREA WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6), THE COURT NOTED A LESSEE IS AN OWNER WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241 (6) (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE INSURED MISREPRESENTED HER HOME ADDRESS AND THE INSURERS DISCLAIMED COVERAGE; THE CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE INSURERS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (UNDERWRITING MANUALS, RULES, BULLETINS) AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MISREPRESENTATION WAS MATERIAL (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Abuse of Discretion to Grant Conditional Order of Preclusion and to Deny Late... Appellate Court Can Exercise Its Own Discretion Re: Scope of Discovery, Even...