Gerbino v. Gerbino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gerbino v. Gerbino

5 A.D.3d 435, 772 N.Y.S.2d 573

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 8, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 435 (Gerbino v. Gerbino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gerbino v. Gerbino, 5 A.D.3d 435, 772 N.Y.S.2d 573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated June 10, 1992, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marks, J.H.O.), dated February 19, 2003, which denied her motion for leave to renew a prior motion to set aside a stipulation of settlement dated December 27, 1999, which was denied by order of the same court dated April 3, 2002.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A motion for leave to renew must be supported by new or additional 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” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]; see Gorman v Ochoa, 2 AD3d 582 [2003]; Bhoj v Bargold Stor. Sys., 303 AD2d 437 [2003]). Here, the plaintiff failed to show that the additional facts were unavailable to her at the time of the hearing and did not provide a reasonable justification for failing to offer them at that time. Krausman, J.P., Schmidt, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated June 10, 1992, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marks, J.H.O.), dated February 19, 2003, which denied her motion for leave to renew a prior motion to set aside a stipulation of settlement dated December 27, 1999, which was denied by order of the same court dated April 3, 2002.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A motion for leave to renew must be supported by new or additional 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” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]; see Gorman v Ochoa, 2 AD3d 582 [2003]; Bhoj v Bargold Stor. Sys., 303 AD2d 437 [2003]). Here, the plaintiff failed to show that the additional facts were unavailable to her at the time of the hearing and did not provide a reasonable justification for failing to offer them at that time. Krausman, J.P., Schmidt, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 435, 772 N.Y.S.2d 573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gerbino-v-gerbino-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack