Lee v. Grimblat
Opinion
| Lee v Grimblat |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 01424 |
| Decided on March 13, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided and Entered: March 13, 2025
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, O'Neill Levy, JJ.
Index No. 100047/23|Appeal No. 3891|Case No. 2024-02283|
v
Elisabeth Royer Grimblat et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Lea Lee nÉe Eleonore GroËn Nitzschke, appellant pro se.
Krantz & Berman LLP, New York (Larry H. Krantz of counsel), for Elisabeth Royer Grimblat, Rose Louisa Groen, and Julie Renee Groen, respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered March 6, 2024, which denied plaintiff's motion for leave to renew pursuant to CPLR 2221(e), or, alternatively, to vacate its prior order pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2), (3) and (4), entered June 5, 2023, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff failed to allege either grounds for vacatur or legitimate new facts to warrant renewal of defendants' motion to dismiss, which was granted by the motion court and affirmed by this Court (see Lee v
Royer Grimblat, 228 AD3d 576 [1st Dept 2024]).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: March 13, 2025
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2025 NY Slip Op 01424 (Lee v. Grimblat) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.