Shane v. Rosenwaks

2023 NY Slip Op 05236
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 17, 2023
DocketIndex No. 152545/19 Appeal No. 804 Case No. 2022-03572
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2023 NY Slip Op 05236 (Shane v. Rosenwaks) 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
Shane v. Rosenwaks, 2023 NY Slip Op 05236 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Shane v Rosenwaks (2023 NY Slip Op 05236)
Shane v Rosenwaks
2023 NY Slip Op 05236
Decided on October 17, 2023
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: October 17, 2023
Before: Webber, J.P., Oing, Gesmer, Rodriguez, Rosado, JJ.

Index No. 152545/19 Appeal No. 804 Case No. 2022-03572

[*1]Barri Shane, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Stacy Rosenwaks et al., Defendants-Respondents.


Rivkah Rothschild, New York (Rivkah Rothschild of counsel) and Greenberg Traurig, Boston, MA (Gary Greenberg of counsel), for appellant.

The Law Offices of Alan S. Futerfas, New York (Alan S. Futerfas and Ellen B. Resnick of counsel), for respondents.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Verna L. Saunders, J.), entered August 4, 2022, which denied plaintiff's motion for leave to renew defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We decline to dismiss the appeal under the circumstances. Nevertheless, we find that the court properly denied plaintiff's motion for leave to renew defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint (see CPLR 2221[e]). The purported "new facts" proffered by plaintiff, set forth in unsworn documents, would have no bearing on the court's consideration of the motion to dismiss because they concerned events that postdated the amended complaint, and plaintiff never sought leave to amend the pleadings (see CPLR 3025[b]).

We perceive no basis to grant defendants' request to enjoin plaintiff from

engaging in further pro se litigation related to the present claims without prior court approval at this time.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: October 17, 2023



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

Related

Shane v. Rosenwaks
2023 NY Slip Op 05236 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2023 NY Slip Op 05236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shane-v-rosenwaks-nyappdiv-2023.