Legal Opinion
Prinz v. New York State Electric & Gas
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 29, 2011PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to renew his opposition to the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint, which had been granted by the Supreme Court in an earlier order. “A motion for leave to renew must be ‘based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination’ ” (Jackson Hgts. Care Ctr., LLC v Bloch, 39 AD3d 477, 480 [2007], quoting CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; see Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]; Kaufman v Kunis, 14 AD3d 542 [2005]). Here, the allegedly new…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Renna v. GulloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Jackson Heights Care Center, LLC v. BlochAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v. AlbertAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Kaufman v. KunisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Kazakhstan Investment Fund Ltd. v. ManoloviciAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. FantoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Davidoff v. East 13th Street Tifereth PlaceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Panagoulopoulos v. Carlos Ortiz Jr MD, P.C.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016