Weitzenberg v. Nassau County Department of Recreation & Parks

53 A.D.3d 653, 862 N.Y.S.2d 556
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 29, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 53 A.D.3d 653 (Weitzenberg v. Nassau County Department of Recreation & Parks) 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
Weitzenberg v. Nassau County Department of Recreation & Parks, 53 A.D.3d 653, 862 N.Y.S.2d 556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for reinstatement and back pay, the plaintiff Roberta Miller appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated April 18, 2007, which denied her third motion for leave to renew a prior motion for class certification.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the third motion of the plaintiff Roberta Miller for leave to renew a prior motion for class certification. “A motion for leave to renew must be supported by new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination, and the motion shall also contain a reasonable justification for the failure to present such [654]*654facts on the prior motion” (Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 37 AD3d 594 [2007]; see Ellner v Schwed, 48 AD3d 739, 740 [2008]; CPLR 2221 [e]). Here, we agree with the Supreme Court that the purportedly new facts were not sufficient to change the prior determination. In addition, Miller failed to offer a reasonable justification for the failure to present those facts in the context of prior motions she made for class certification, two of which have been the subject of appeals to this Court (see Weitzenberg v Nassau County Dept. of Recreation & Parks, 29 AD3d 682 [2006]; Weitzenberg v Nassau County Dept. of Recreation & Parks, 249 AD2d 538 [1998]).

Miller’s remaining contentions are without merit Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Carni and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

RLI Insurance v. Steely
88 A.D.3d 975 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v. Michael Holdings, Inc.
77 A.D.3d 805 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Development Strategies Co. v. Astoria Equities, Inc.
71 A.D.3d 628 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Bank of New York v. Segui
68 A.D.3d 908 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Lawlor v. Hoffman
59 A.D.3d 499 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Tretter v. Tretter
54 A.D.3d 1026 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 A.D.3d 653, 862 N.Y.S.2d 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weitzenberg-v-nassau-county-department-of-recreation-parks-nyappdiv-2008.