You are here: / / A COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO RENEW THAT IS NOT BASED...

A COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO RENEW THAT IS NOT BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that, although a motion to renew should be based upon newly discovered evidence, a court has the discretion to grant a motion to renew based on evidence which was available:

Although it is true that a motion to renew should generally be based upon newly-discovered facts, this rule is not inflexible, and the court has discretion to grant renewal in the interest of justice even upon facts that were known to the movant at the time the original motion was made … . Here, we decline to interfere with the court’s discretionary decision to grant renewal. Further, in view of the strong policy in favor of resolving disputes on the merits, and in the absence of prejudice to defendants, we conclude that the motion court, upon renewal, providently exercised its discretion in vacating the judgment. Kaszar v Cho, 2018 NY Slip Op 02555, First Dept 4-12-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO RENEW, A COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO RENEW THAT IS NOT BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))/RENEW, MOTION TO (A COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO RENEW THAT IS NOT BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
A COMBINED MOTION TO REARGUE AND MOTION TO RENEW IS PROPER; HERE SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY DENIED THE MOTION TO REARGUE BUT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE MOTION TO RENEW; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT). ​
ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED.
ACTION BASED UPON FAILURE TO SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S USE OF A HOSPITAL REST ROOM SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
Flight Elevated Level of Suspicion and Justified Pursuit.
PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A TEMPORARY SCAFFOLD HE HAD BUILT COLLAPSED; DEFENDANTS ARGUED PLAINTIFF DID NOT FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PROPERLY BUILD THE SCAFFOLD; THE RECALCITRANT-WORKER DEFENSE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NEVER PROVIDED WITH AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE AND PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WILL NOT DEFEAT A LABOR LAW 240(1) SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S REPEATED REQUESTS TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS OR PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).
TEACHER ACQUIRED TENURE BY ESTOPPEL (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

FACTS WHICH LED TO A PROCEEDING THAT WAS ULTIMATELY SEALED AND HEARSAY ARE ADMISSIBLE... DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPLACE OR DISMISS HIS STANDBY COUNSEL PROPERLY...