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
Facts Did Not Support Family Court’s Dismissal of a Petition to Terminate Parental Rights of Both Parents—Permanent Neglect Finding Was Warranted by the Facts
Survey Without Surveyor’s Affidavit Insufficient to Support Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion/Inadmissible Evidence (Survey) May Be Considered to Defeat Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion/Nuisance Cause of Action Dismissed Because Duplicative of Negligence Cause of Action
THE STAY ON A NEW YORK ACTION TO RECOVER A NAZI-LOOTED PAINTING, PENDING A SWISS RULING ON THE IDENTITY OF THE HEIRS TO THE PAINTING, VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).
Motion to Compel Discovery in Class Action Suit Erroneously Denied—“Full Disclosure” Criteria Explained
PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT).
RESPONDENT IN THIS CUSTODY AND VISITATION PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE HAS STANDING TO ASSERT PARENTAL RIGHTS IS ENTITLED, PURSUANT TO DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 237, TO ATTORNEY’S FEES PAID BY THE “MORE MONIED” PETITIONER; RESPONDENT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED TO BE A “PARENT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 237 FOR THE NARROW PURPOSE OF ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AT THIS PRELIMINARY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS (FIRST DEPT).
CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE GUARANTY LAW WHICH WAS FOUND TO HAVE BARRED PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR CERTAIN AMOUNTS (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER A NEW JERSEY RADIOLOGIST IN THIS MISDIAGNOSIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PURSUANT TO TWO PROVISIONS OF CPLR 302(a) (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...