Exeter Holding, Ltd. v. Morway Builders & Developers, Inc.

299 A.D.2d 518, 750 N.Y.S.2d 503
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Exeter Holding, Ltd. v. Morway Builders & Developers, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 270 A.D.2d 451

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Morway Builders and Developers, Inc., and Desmond D’Souza appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated August 27, 2001, which denied their motion for leave to renew a prior motion to vacate a judgment entered against them upon their default in answering.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for leave to renew, as they offered no reasonable explanation as to why the alleged “new” evidence was not submitted with the prior motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. v Singh, 297 AD2d 349; Feldstein v Rounick, 295 AD2d 400). Santucci, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Exeter Holding, Ltd. v. Morway Builders & Developers, Inc., 299 A.D.2d 518, 750 N.Y.S.2d 503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

299 A.D.2d 518 (Exeter Holding, Ltd. v. Morway Builders & Developers, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Feldstein v. Rounick
295 A.D.2d 400 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Tri-State Consumer Insurance v. Singh
297 A.D.2d 349 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)