Huma v. Patel
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*822The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion, in effect, for leave to renew his opposition to a prior motion of the plaintiffs Uzma Huma and Faiza Berlas for summary judgment on the complaint. 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]). Although a court has the discretion to grant renewal upon facts known to the movant…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Cahill v. ReganNew York Court of Appeals · 1959
- Renna v. GulloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- In re SchaeferNew York Court of Appeals · 1966
- Worrell v. Parkway Estates, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Lefrak SBN Associates v. Kennedy Galleries, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Rowe v. NYCPDAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Eskenazi v. MackoulAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Dervisevic v. DervisevicAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- John Hancock Life Insurance v. HirschAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Mazzurco v. PII Sam, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.