Goyzueta v. Urban Health Plan, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goyzueta v. Urban Health Plan, Inc.

256 A.D.2d 307, 681 N.Y.S.2d 761, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13205

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 7, 1998·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated December 12, 1997, which, upon renewal, vacated a judgment of the same court, entered October 20, 1997, and, inter alia, ordered a trial de novo.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While it generally is true that a motion to renew must be based on newly-discovered facts, courts have discretion to grant this relief in the interest of justice, although not all of the requirements are met (see, Strong v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Ctr., 240 AD2d 726; Oremland v Miller Minutemen Con[308]*308str. Corp., 133 AD2d 816). It was proper for the Supreme Court, upon renewal, to vacate the judgment which had been entered in favor of the plaintiff and order a trial de novo. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated December 12, 1997, which, upon renewal, vacated a judgment of the same court, entered October 20, 1997, and, inter alia, ordered a trial de novo.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While it generally is true that a motion to renew must be based on newly-discovered facts, courts have discretion to grant this relief in the interest of justice, although not all of the requirements are met (see, Strong v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Ctr., 240 AD2d 726; Oremland v Miller Minutemen Con[308]*308str. Corp., 133 AD2d 816). It was proper for the Supreme Court, upon renewal, to vacate the judgment which had been entered in favor of the plaintiff and order a trial de novo. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Goyzueta v. Urban Health Plan, Inc., 256 A.D.2d 307, 681 N.Y.S.2d 761, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

256 A.D.2d 307 (Goyzueta v. Urban Health Plan, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related