Gurman v. Fotiades

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gurman v. Fotiades

90 A.D.3d 840, 934 N.Y.2d 816

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.3d 840 (Gurman v. Fotiades) 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

Gurman v. Fotiades, 90 A.D.3d 840, 934 N.Y.2d 816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for leave to renew their prior motion to vacate a judgment entered upon their default in opposing the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. The defendants failed to present “new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; see Levitin v A.R.B. Mgt. Servs., Inc., 48 AD3d 759 [2008]). Rivera, J.E, Hall, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for leave to renew their prior motion to vacate a judgment entered upon their default in opposing the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. The defendants failed to present “new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; see Levitin v A.R.B. Mgt. Servs., Inc., 48 AD3d 759 [2008]). Rivera, J.E, Hall, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 840, 934 N.Y.2d 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gurman-v-fotiades-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack