You are here: / / A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW CAN BE BASED UPON A CLARIFICATION OF DECISIONAL...

A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW CAN BE BASED UPON A CLARIFICATION OF DECISIONAL LAW, BUT NOT, AS WAS THE CASE HERE, ON A DECISION APPLYING ESTABLISHED LAW TO THE FACTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the motion for leave to renew should not have been granted because it was not based upon a change in law. Rather it was based upon a case in which established law was applied to the facts:

“A motion for leave to renew is the appropriate vehicle for seeking relief from a prior order based on a change in the law,” including, a clarification of decisional law ( …see CPLR 2221[e][2]). Here, however, the defendant failed to demonstrate such a change in the law … . Instead, the defendant merely pointed to case law … , in which this Court applied established law … to the facts presented in the particular case before it. Sharan v Christiana Trust, 2023 NY Slip Op 04789, Second Dept 9-27-23

Practice Point: A motion for leave to renew can be based on a change in the law, even a clarification of decisional law. But here the motion was improperly based upon a decision which merely applied established law to the facts.

 

You might also like
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED SUPPRESSION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES; THE APPELLATE COURT IS POWERLESS TO REVIEW THAT ISSUE; THE APPELLATE COURT IS ALSO POWERLESS TO REVIEW THE SECOND GROUND FOR SUPPRESSION ARGUED BY THE PEOPLE ON APPEAL BECAUSE THAT SECOND ISSUE WAS RESOLVED BELOW IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR; MATTER SENT BACK TO SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW OF THE SECOND ISSUE SHOULD THE PEOPLE BE SO ADVISED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE WAS READY WILLING AND ABLE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Amendment to Notice of Claim to Add Second Hospital Should Have Been Allowed
EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT USED HIS FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WITNESS (DEFENDANT’S COUSIN) TO INDUCE THE WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT INTRODUCTION OF THE WITNESS’S PRIOR STATEMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
Prosecutorial Misconduct and Defense Counsel’s Ineffectiveness Required Reversal
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 NOT PROVEN; PLAINTIFF BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT)
BOTH PLAINTIFF PASSENGER AND DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF PASSENGER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S MOTORCYCLE WAS SO CLOSE AS TO CONSTITUTE AN IMMEDIATE HAZARD WHEN DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN ACROSS PLAINTIFF’S LANE OF TRAFFIC; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

THE MOTION SEEKING A CIVIL CONTEMPT DETERMINATION COULD NOT BE HEARD BECAUSE... IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE PROOF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN...