Lesanti v. Harmac Industries, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
— Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant’s motion to renew. Although a court may properly deny a motion to renew where the new facts were available to the movant at the time of the original motion, a court has broad discretion to grant renewal even upon facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion (Watsky v Town of Ossining Planning Bd., 136 AD2d 634, 635; Pinto v Pinto, 120 AD2d 337, 338; Esa v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Irwin v. KleinNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Cameli v. Pace UniversityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Esa v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Brooks v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- Pinto v. PintoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Claim of Shoemaker v. Manpower, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Claim of Johnson v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Adams v. North-Star Construction Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Eagen v. Harlequin Books Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Degruchy v. Xerox Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.