Priant v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Priant v. New York City Transit Authority

142 A.D.3d 491, 36 N.Y.S.3d 201

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

DecidedAugust 3, 2016

Docket2015-09898

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 142 A.D.3d 491 (Priant v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Priant v. New York City Transit Authority, 142 A.D.3d 491, 36 N.Y.S.3d 201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Baynes, J.), dated September 28, 2015, which denied his motion for leave to renew that branch of his prior motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff moved, inter aha, for leave to serve a late notice of claim. In an order dated January 17, 2014, the Supreme Court granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion. The defendant New York City Transit Authority appealed, and by decision and order dated March 11, 2015, this Court reversed so much of the order dated January 17, 2014, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim, and denied that branch of the motion (see Priant v New York City Tr. Auth., 126 AD3d 774 [2015]). The plaintiff then moved for leave to renew that branch of his prior motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew, and the plaintiff appeals.

Pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e), 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” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]). On a postap-peal motion for leave to renew, the movant bears a heavy burden of showing due diligence in presenting the new evidence to the Supreme Court (see Matter of Crane, 127 AD3d 747, 748 *492 [2015]; Derby v Bitan, 112 AD3d 881, 882 [2013]; Andrews v New York City Hous. Auth., 90 AD3d 962, 963 [2011]). “A motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” (Elder v Elder, 21 AD3d 1055, 1055 [2005]; see Rose v Levine, 98 AD3d 1015, 1015-1016 [2012]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Liberty Mut. Ins., 58 AD3d 727, 728 [2009]).

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that the new evidence offered in support of his motion for leave to renew could not have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence (see Andrews v New York City Hous. Auth., 90 AD3d 962, 963 [2011]; Ferdico v Zweig, 82 AD3d 1151, 1152 [2011]; Sicurelli v Sicurelli, 73 AD3d 735 [2010]; Levitt v County of Suffolk, 166 AD2d 421, 422-423 [1990]). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew that branch of his prior motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim was properly denied.

The plaintiffs remaining contention is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Bhanti v Jha, 140 AD3d 685 [2016]).

Dillon, J.P., Roman, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Baynes, J.), dated September 28, 2015, which denied his motion for leave to renew that branch of his prior motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff moved, inter aha, for leave to serve a late notice of claim. In an order dated January 17, 2014, the Supreme Court granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion. The defendant New York City Transit Authority appealed, and by decision and order dated March 11, 2015, this Court reversed so much of the order dated January 17, 2014, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim, and denied that branch of the motion (see Priant v New York City Tr. Auth., 126 AD3d 774 [2015]). The plaintiff then moved for leave to renew that branch of his prior motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew, and the plaintiff appeals.

Pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e), 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” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]). On a postap-peal motion for leave to renew, the movant bears a heavy burden of showing due diligence in presenting the new evidence to the Supreme Court (see Matter of Crane, 127 AD3d 747, 748 *492 [2015]; Derby v Bitan, 112 AD3d 881, 882 [2013]; Andrews v New York City Hous. Auth., 90 AD3d 962, 963 [2011]). “A motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” (Elder v Elder, 21 AD3d 1055, 1055 [2005]; see Rose v Levine, 98 AD3d 1015, 1015-1016 [2012]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Liberty Mut. Ins., 58 AD3d 727, 728 [2009]).

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that the new evidence offered in support of his motion for leave to renew could not have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence (see Andrews v New York City Hous. Auth., 90 AD3d 962, 963 [2011]; Ferdico v Zweig, 82 AD3d 1151, 1152 [2011]; Sicurelli v Sicurelli, 73 AD3d 735 [2010]; Levitt v County of Suffolk, 166 AD2d 421, 422-423 [1990]). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew that branch of his prior motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim was properly denied.

The plaintiffs remaining contention is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Bhanti v Jha, 140 AD3d 685 [2016]).

Dillon, J.P., Roman, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 491, 36 N.Y.S.3d 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/priant-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack