Yerushalmi v. Yerushalmi
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
“ ‘A motion for leave to renew must (1) be based upon new facts not offered on a prior motion that would change the prior determination, and (2) set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion’ ” (Swedish v Beizer, 51 AD3d 1008, 1010 [2008], quoting Ellner v Schwed, 48 AD3d 739, 740 [2008]; see CPLR 2221 [e]; Matter of 171 Sterling, LLC v Stone Arts, Inc., 66 AD3d 688 [2009]). “ ‘Leave to renew is not warranted where the factual material adduced in connection with the subsequent motion is merely cumulative with respect to the factual material…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ellner v. SchwedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. v. Assessor of the Town of HaverstrawAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Swedish v. BeizerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Stone v. Bridgehampton Race CircuitAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Sterling Condominium, LLC v. Stone Arts, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. RussellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Varela v. ClarkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Bardes v. PintadoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Matter of Wydra v. BrachAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Analiese Home Corp. v. MannariAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2018
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.