Ment v. Onondaga County Comm. of the Conservative Party of N.Y. State
Opinion
Ment v Onondaga County Comm. of the Conservative Party of N.Y. State
2025 NY Slip Op 30918(U)
March 21, 2025
Supreme Court, Onondaga County Docket Number: Index No. 010157/2024 Judge: William F. Ramseier Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
!FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 03/21/2025 11: 51 AM] INDEX NO. 010157 /2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 99 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/21/2025
At a term of Supreme Court held in and for the County of Onondaga, in the City of Syracuse , New York on the 20th day of March , 2025.
PRESENT: HONORABLE WILLIAM F. RAMSEIER Supreme Court Justice
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ONONDAGA
DECISION
BERNARD MENT, et al , AND ORDER
Petitioners/Plaintiffs ,
-vs- Index No. 010157/2024
ONONDAGA COUNTY COMMITTEE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE , ROBERT GRAHAM AND NANCY ROBERTS , et al ,
Respondents/Defendants.
Petitioners move this Court for a motion to reargue pursuant to CPLR §2221 [d]
and to renew pursuant to CPLR 2221 [e] . Respondents oppose .
A motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR § 2221 "may be granted only upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or the law, or fo r some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision ." Andrea v E.I. Ou Pont De Nemours & Co. , 289 AD2d 1039, 1040-41 [4th Dept 2001]. Motions for reargument are addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Oelcrete Corp. v Kling , 67 AD2d 1099, 1100 [4th Dept 1979].
Petitioners directs the Court to Glen Wild Land Company, LLC v Town of Thompson , 233 AD3d1136 [3rd Dept 2024][wherein the underlying Supreme Court order did not address the number of valid signatures for a referendum petition] and 22 NYC RR
1
[* 1] 1 of 2 !FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 03/21/2025 11: 51 AM] INDEX NO. 010157/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 99 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/21/2025
202 .64 . The premise of Petitioners' argument is that th is Court failed to make factual findings in its February 6, 2025 decision . The Court disagrees and finds that Petitioners have failed to direct the Court to any law or facts that the Court overlooked or misapprehended .
A motion to renew "shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that wou ld change the prior determ ination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that wou ld change the prior determination ." CPLR §2221 [e] . Petitioners' motion to renew on ly rehashes allegations and arguments already cons idered in the Court's underlying decision . As such , the Court finds that Petitioners failed to present any new facts as requ ired .
It is therefore,
ORDERED that the Petitioners motion to reargue is DENIED ; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioners motion to renew is DENIED .
March 21 , 2025 Watertown , New York
ENTER
2
[* 2] 2 of 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2025 NY Slip Op 30918(U) (Ment v. Onondaga County Comm. of the Conservative Party of N.Y. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.