Legal Opinion
Choy v. Mai Ling Lai
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 17, 2012PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]) and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; see Barnett v Smith, 64 AD3d 669, 670 [2009]; Chernysheva v Pinchuck, 57 AD3d 936, 937 [2008]). Here, that branch of the father’s motion which was for leave to renew his motion to vacate the support order dated June 26, 2008, was properly denied by the Support Magistrate, as the allegedly new facts offered would not have…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Barnett v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Chernysheva v. PinchuckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
3Cited by21 opinions
- Jovanovic v. JovanovicAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Abrams v. BerelsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- DeMarquez v. GalloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Lindbergh v. SHLO 54, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Professional Offshore Opportunity Fund, Ltd. v. BraiderAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.