Legal Opinion
Mejia-Ortiz v. Inoa
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 10, 2011PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*515No appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (DiPasquale v Gutfleish, 74 AD3d 471 [2010]). Supreme Court properly denied the motion to renew. The only new facts submitted in support of the motion relate to plaintiffs counsel’s attempts to serve defendant Inoa after commencement of the action. Even if counsel provided a reasonable explanation for failing to include those facts in the prior motion, they do not warrant a change in the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]). Indeed, plaintiff still failed to provide an affidavit of merit or a reasonable excuse for the 2V2-year…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ritt v. Lenox Hill HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Mejia-Ortiz v. InoaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- DiPasquale v. GutfleishAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
3Cited by6 opinions
- Nichols v. CurtisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Espinal v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Corporan v. DennisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Corporan v. DennisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Espinal v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.