Hughes v. Welsbach Electric Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hughes v. Welsbach Electric Co.

101 A.D.3d 684, 954 N.Y.2d 501

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

DecidedDecember 5, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 684 (Hughes v. Welsbach Electric Co.) 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

Hughes v. Welsbach Electric Co., 101 A.D.3d 684, 954 N.Y.2d 501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[685]*685“A motion for leave to renew shall be based upon new 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” (Marrero v Crystal Nails, 77 AD3d 798, 799 [2010]; see CPLR 2221 [e]; Behar v Quaker Ridge Golf Club, Inc., 95 AD3d 808, 809 [2012]; Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v Albert, 78 AD3d 985, 986 [2010]). Here, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to renew her opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as the new evidence offered on the motion would not have changed the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v Marchese, 96 AD3d 791, 792 [2012]; Behar v Quaker Ridge Golf Club, Inc., 95 AD3d at 809; Grossman v New York Life Ins. Co., 90 AD3d 990, 992 [2011]). Dillon, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

[685]*685“A motion for leave to renew shall be based upon new 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” (Marrero v Crystal Nails, 77 AD3d 798, 799 [2010]; see CPLR 2221 [e]; Behar v Quaker Ridge Golf Club, Inc., 95 AD3d 808, 809 [2012]; Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v Albert, 78 AD3d 985, 986 [2010]). Here, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to renew her opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as the new evidence offered on the motion would not have changed the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v Marchese, 96 AD3d 791, 792 [2012]; Behar v Quaker Ridge Golf Club, Inc., 95 AD3d at 809; Grossman v New York Life Ins. Co., 90 AD3d 990, 992 [2011]). Dillon, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 684, 954 N.Y.2d 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-welsbach-electric-co-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack