Zebulun v. Mamadou Oury Bah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zebulun v. Mamadou Oury Bah

34 A.D.3d 378, 823 N.Y.S.2d 897

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

DecidedNovember 30, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.3d 378 (Zebulun v. Mamadou Oury Bah) 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

Zebulun v. Mamadou Oury Bah, 34 A.D.3d 378, 823 N.Y.S.2d 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Supreme Court, New York [379]*379County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered May 4, 2005,. which denied plaintiffs motion to vacate a default judgment and renew a prior motion seeking to vacate dismissal of the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs latest motion was not based upon new facts (CPLR 2221 [e] [2])—the physician’s affirmation he submitted was dated December 9, 2003—and plaintiff did not explain his failure to present such facts on the prior motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). Hence, leave to renew was properly denied (see e.g. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 11 AD3d 300, 301 [2004]; Chelsea Piers Mgt. v Forest Elec. Corp., 281 AD2d 252 [2001]). The motion court was not obliged to grant plaintiffs request for renewal simply because defendants had failed to oppose it. Concur—Buckley, RJ., Tom, Mazzarelli, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

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

Supreme Court, New York [379]*379County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered May 4, 2005,. which denied plaintiffs motion to vacate a default judgment and renew a prior motion seeking to vacate dismissal of the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs latest motion was not based upon new facts (CPLR 2221 [e] [2])—the physician’s affirmation he submitted was dated December 9, 2003—and plaintiff did not explain his failure to present such facts on the prior motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). Hence, leave to renew was properly denied (see e.g. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 11 AD3d 300, 301 [2004]; Chelsea Piers Mgt. v Forest Elec. Corp., 281 AD2d 252 [2001]). The motion court was not obliged to grant plaintiffs request for renewal simply because defendants had failed to oppose it. Concur—Buckley, RJ., Tom, Mazzarelli, Williams and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 378, 823 N.Y.S.2d 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zebulun-v-mamadou-oury-bah-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack