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

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 307 (Goyzueta v. Urban Health Plan, Inc.) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 307, 681 N.Y.S.2d 761, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goyzueta-v-urban-health-plan-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack