From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mayer v. McBrunigan Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 1986
123 A.D.2d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

October 2, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Dachenhausen, J.).


Order affirmed, with costs.

"Leave to renew should be denied unless the moving party offers a reasonable excuse as to why the additional facts were not submitted on the original application" (Caffee v Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 352; Teal v Place, 85 A.D.2d 788). No such reasonable excuse was offered at bar, where the additional evidence consisted for the most part of public records and information within the knowledge of the movants at the time of the original motion (see, Lo Breglio v Marks, 105 A.D.2d 621, affd 65 N.Y.2d 620; Silinsky v State-Wide Ins. Co., 30 A.D.2d 1). Thus Special Term did not err in denying the defendants' motion to renew. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mayer v. McBrunigan Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 1986
123 A.D.2d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Mayer v. McBrunigan Construction Corp.

Case Details

Full title:SIDNEY MAYER, Respondent, v. McBRUNIGAN CONSTRUCTION CORP. et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 2, 1986

Citations

123 A.D.2d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Wodecki v. Carty

The plaintiff's motion, although characterized as one for renewal and reargument of the defendants' motion…

Spear v. Herbert

The denial of the plaintiffs' motion, characterized as one for renewal and reargument of the defendants'…