You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RENEW A MOTION FOR MORE TIME TO CONDUCT AN...
, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RENEW A MOTION FOR MORE TIME TO CONDUCT AN IME SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to renew should have been granted and defendant should have been granted more time to conduct an independent medical examination (IME) of plaintiff:

“A motion for leave to renew or reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” … . A motion for leave to reargue “shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[d][2]). A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” … and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” … . “A combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew shall identify separately and support separately each item of relief sought” … . …

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, without prejudice, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for leave to renew. The defendant presented new facts and a reasonable justification for failing to present such facts on the prior motion, and demonstrated that the new evidence would have changed the prior determination … . Moreover, the papers submitted by the defendant in support of the motion, as supplemented by the papers submitted by the plaintiff, which expressly incorporated the plaintiff’s prior opposition, were sufficient to determine the motion …. Fulcher v Empire State Grand Council Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite Masons, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 06352, Second Dept 12-13-24

Practice Point: The motion to renew presented new facts and a reasonable justification for failing to present those facts in the prior motion. The motion should have been granted.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DRIVER WAVED TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A PEDESTRIAN, INDICATING SHE WAS ALLOWING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO CROSS THE STREET; ONE SECOND LATER PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS STRUCK BY ANOTHER CAR; THE ACCIDENT WAS THE RESULT OF A SUPERSEDING, INTERVENING ACT AND DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
WRITTEN NOTICE AS A PREREQUISITE FOR CITY LIABILITY APPLIES EVEN TO TRANSITORY CONDITIONS, HERE ICE ON THE SIDEWALK, SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST CITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
“Cleaning” Within the Meaning of Labor Law 240(1) Explained
PLAINTIFF IN THIS MED-MAL WRONGFUL-DEATH ACTION DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NINETY-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE, DID NOT PRESENT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO RESPOND, AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PASSIVE OMISSIONS, FAILURE TO SALT ICY AREA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAUNCHING OF AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM.
Superior Court Information Jurisdictionally Defective—It Did Not Include Any Offense (or Any Lesser-Included) Which Was in the Original Felony Complaint
PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION AMOUNTED TO MISCONDUCT, 911 CALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSION OR AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, CROSS-EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT UNDULY RESTRICTED.
THE 2ND DEPARTMENT REVERSED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE BANK BECAUSE ONE OF TWO BORROWERS WAS NOT NAMED IN THE RPAPL 1306 FILING; THIS RULING MAY NOT HOLD UP BECAUSE, ON MARCH 30, 2021, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD ONLY ONE BORROWER NEED BE NAMED IN THE RPAPL 1306 FILING (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

​PLAINTIFF’S FIRST EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED... THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON FOR THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE LISTED BUT NOT...