You are here: / / BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW AND REARGUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN...
,

BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW AND REARGUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion to renew and reargue in this foreclosure action should not have been granted:

​

A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination and must contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion (see CPLR 2221[e][2]). While a court has discretion to entertain renewal based on facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion, the movant must set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to submit the information in the first instance  … . Renewal “is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” … . …

​

A motion for leave to reargue is similarly directed to the trial court’s discretion and, to warrant reargument, the moving party must demonstrate that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied law (see CPLR 2221[d] …). Here, … the court, in its initial determination, did not overlook or misapprehend relevant facts or misapply the law in deciding that [the bank] had failed to meet its prima facie burden on the issue of standing, thus requiring denial of its motion … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Jeffrey Novis, 2018 NY Slip Op 00281, Second Dept 1-17-18

FORECLOSURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW AND REARGUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW AND REARGUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT)).CPLR 2221 (BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW AND REARGUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO AMEND BILL OF PARTICULARS AS OF RIGHT PRIOR TO FILING OF NOTE OF ISSUE.
City Did Not Demonstrate Entitlement to Qualified Immunity for a Planning Decision Re: Design of Playground Equipment
PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SOUGHT TO ADD TWO PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANTS (PA’S) AS DEFENDANTS AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT DOCTORS WERE THE PA’S EMPLOYERS OR SUPERVISORS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PA’S HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTION; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
JUDGE DID NOT MAKE IT CLEAR THAT DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE INCLUDED A PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, PLEA VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE IS DEPENDENT UPON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FROM WHICH INFERENCES MUST BE DRAWN, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS USUALLY NOT APPROPRIATE; HERE A GARAGE DOOR CLOSED OR FELL ON PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS ROAD-DEFECT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE NINE-MONTH DELAY WAS NOT EXPLAINED; THE CITIY DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT; AND PETITIONER DID NOT SHOW THE CITY WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE THE CREDIT CARD BILLING STATEMENTS AND THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT WERE MAILED TO THE DEFENDANT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BREACH OF CONTRACT AND ACCOUNT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE THE COMPLAINANT SUFFERED “SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY” FROM MULTIPLE STAB WOUNDS WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; CONVICTIONS REDUCED TO ATTEMPTED GANG ASSAULT, ASSAULT AND ROBBERY (SECOND 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

AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AFFIANT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ACT... PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION,...