Gurman v. Fotiades
90 A.D.3d 840, 934 N.Y.2d 816
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Gurman v. Fotiades. Read the opinion of the Court — 73 A.D.3d 1126 →
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 20, 2011·Published
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
Gurman v. Fotiades, 90 A.D.3d 840, 934 N.Y.2d 816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).
90 A.D.3d 840 (Gurman v. Fotiades) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Levitin v. A.R.B. Management Services, Inc.
48 A.D.3d 759 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)