Osmers v. Hassett Lincoln Mercury Sales, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Osmers v. Hassett Lincoln Mercury Sales, Inc.

309 A.D.2d 806, 765 N.Y.S.2d 797

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 806 (Osmers v. Hassett Lincoln Mercury Sales, Inc.) 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

Osmers v. Hassett Lincoln Mercury Sales, Inc., 309 A.D.2d 806, 765 N.Y.S.2d 797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Lien Law § 201-a to cancel a lien, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated March 7, 2003, as denied that branch of his motion as was for leave to renew the petition.

[807]*807Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioner failed to set forth a reasonable justification why the additional facts offered in support of that branch of his motion which was for leave to renew were not offered in support of his original application (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Barbuto v Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 305 AD2d 623 [2003]; Elias v Grossman, 306 AD2d 432 [2003]; Matter of Orange & Rockland Utils. v Assessor of Town of Haverstraw, 304 AD2d 668 [2003]). Accordingly, leave to renew was properly denied. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Lien Law § 201-a to cancel a lien, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated March 7, 2003, as denied that branch of his motion as was for leave to renew the petition.

[807]*807Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioner failed to set forth a reasonable justification why the additional facts offered in support of that branch of his motion which was for leave to renew were not offered in support of his original application (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Barbuto v Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 305 AD2d 623 [2003]; Elias v Grossman, 306 AD2d 432 [2003]; Matter of Orange & Rockland Utils. v Assessor of Town of Haverstraw, 304 AD2d 668 [2003]). Accordingly, leave to renew was properly denied. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 806, 765 N.Y.S.2d 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osmers-v-hassett-lincoln-mercury-sales-inc-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack