You are here: / / IF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN A MOTION TO RENEW WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME...

IF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN A MOTION TO RENEW WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION, THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE IT MUST BE EXPLAINED; HERE THE FAILURE WAS NOT EXPLAINED AND THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence presented in plaintiff’s motion to renew was available at the time of the initial motion. Therefore plaintiff’s failure to explain the failure to include it required denial of the renewal motion:

Plaintiff moved under CPLR 2221(e) for leave to renew defendants’ motion to vacate the default and compel arbitration. In support of its motion, plaintiff submitted public court filings showing that the prior attorney was not incapacitated as he claimed between September 18 … and December 31 … and that the prior attorney had appeared in at least one hearing during that time. Plaintiff argued that the prior attorney’s explanation for his failure to appear on behalf of defendants, on which Supreme Court relied upon to vacate the default, contained material misrepresentations and that these new facts were sufficient to warrant renewal. In opposition, defendants submitted an affirmation from the prior attorney essentially reasserting the circumstances of his default. Supreme Court granted renewal, vacated the prior order, and reinstated the default judgment.

The record demonstrates that the court filings plaintiff relies on, which are matters of public record, existed at the time it submitted opposition to defendants’ vacatur motion. Plaintiff, however, did not provide in the renewal motion a “reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[e][3]…). Chris Grant Brohawk Films v Digital Seven LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06635, First Dept 11-22-22

Practice Point: If a motion to renew is based upon evidence which was available at the time of the original motion, the failure must be explained. Here the absence of any explanation required denial of the motion to renew.

 

You might also like
Late Notice of Claim Should Not Have Been Deemed Timely (Sua Sponte, Nunc Pro Tunc)—the 90 Days Started Running When Plaintiff’s Asthma Symptoms Worsened, Not When a Doctor Connected the Symptoms to Mold in the Apartment—the Plaintiff Did Not Make a Motion for Permission to File a Late Notice of Claim
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED DECEDENT, WHO WAS SUFFERING SHORTNESS OF BREATH, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AN ADVANCE LIFE SUPPORT AMBULANCE; THE COMPLAINT SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD ARE POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL RECORDS WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST.
BECAUSE LOOSE PLANKS ON A SCAFFOLD CONSTITUTED A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S ACTS OR OMISSIONS COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL AND THE RECALCITRANT WORKER DEFENSE WAS NOT AVAILABLE (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, HEAVY TRANSFORMER SHIFTED DOWNWARD STRIKING PLAINTIFF, NO SAFETY DEVICES PROVIDED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION WHETHER ENFORCING THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE THIS EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE WOULD, BECAUSE OF THE COSTS INVOLVED, EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM PURSUING HIS CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION TO DISMISS SUIT SEEKING RETURN OF A PAINTING ALLEGEDLY LOOTED BY THE NAZI-OCCUPIED FRENCH GOVERNMENT DURING WORLD WAR II PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
COURT’S LIMITED POWER OF REVIEW OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD EXPLAINED IN DEPTH, VACATION OF AWARD REVERSED (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

THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT EXPLAIN HOW THE IMPROPERLY SECURED BEAM WHICH... THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE SPONTANEOUS USE OF A KNIFE...