Legal Opinion
Marino v. Brown
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 4, 1996PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Generally, "[a]n application for leave to renew must be based upon additional material facts which existed at the time the prior motion was made, but were not then known to the party seeking leave to renew, and, therefore, not made known to the court” (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568). While "a court, in its discretion, may grant renewal upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the original motion” (Karlin v Bridges, 172 AD2d 644, 645; see, Oremland v Miller Minutemen Constr. Corp., 133 AD2d 816, 818; Patterson v Town of Hempstead, 104 AD2d 975, 976), renewal should not be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Foley v. RocheAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- Oremland v. Miller Minutemen Construction Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Karlin v. BridgesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Patterson v. Town of HempsteadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
3Cited by4 opinions
- State-Wide Insurance v. RoweAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- TIME CAP DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COLONY INSURANCE COMPANYAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Time Cap Development Corp. v. Colony Insurance Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Time Cap Development Corp. v. Colony Insurance Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017