Dankner v. Szurzan & Dorf, Inc.

7 Citing cases

  1. Ramos v. City of New York

    61 A.D.3d 51 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 31 times

    Plaintiff failed to seek renewal for more than three years after the Appellate Term reversed his conviction, and even then did so only at the urging of Supreme Court (or, as the majority charitably puts it, after "receiving guidance" from Supreme Court). Although a motion to renew is not subject to any particular limitation of time in which it must be made, I think it evident that plaintiff's protracted and unexplained delay is utterly inexcusable ( see e.g. Levy v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 40 AD3d 359, lv dismissed 9 NY3d 1001 [renewal denied where plaintiff, in seeking renewal of prior motion, failed to offer reasonable justification for her five-year delay in seeking renewal]; Cole-Hatchard v Grand Union, 270 AD2d 447 [renewal improperly granted where party seeking renewal failed to offer excuse for seven-month delay in seeking renewal]; Dankner v Szurzan Dorf, 226 AD2d 669 [renewal properly denied where party seeking renewal failed to offer an explanation for her 17-month delay in seeking renewal]; Ramsco, Inc. v Riozzi, 210 AD2d 592 [renewal properly denied where party seeking renewal failed to offer excuse for its seven-month delay in seeking renewal]; Elgem, Inc. v National Gypsum, 192 AD2d 636 [renewal properly denied where party seeking renewal failed to offer explanation for his 13-month delay in seeking renewal]). By nonetheless granting renewal and denying appellants' motion for summary judgment, Supreme Court failed to heed legal standards and unjustifiably vitiated appellants' legitimate finality interests and expectations.

  2. In re of Tri-State Consumer Ins. v. Singh

    297 A.D.2d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 5 times

    ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion for leave to renew, as it offered no reasonable excuse as to why the evidence submitted with the motion was not previously submitted in opposition to the petition (see CPLR 2221[e]; Matter of Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Nevelus, 292 A.D.2d 381; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Taddeo, 285 A.D.2d 503). Additionally, even if the appellant's excuse was reasonable, it failed to explain the nearly five-month delay in moving to renew (see Cole-Hatchard v. Grand Union, 270 A.D.2d 447; Dankner v. Szurzan Dorf, 226 A.D.2d 669; Elgem, Inc. v. National Gypsum, 192 A.D.2d 636). ALTMAN, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, FRIEDMANN, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.

  3. Drasner v. Drasner

    273 A.D.2d 131 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

    Based on the unchallenged assertions of the husband and the parties' unambiguous prenuptial agreement, the court properly determined that the husband's interest in the newspaper was his separate property and, accordingly, that he was entitled to partial summary judgment. The court also properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff wife's motion for renewal since her assertions concerning her former attorney's failure to properly advise her constituted an insufficient excuse for omitting the allegedly new material in opposition to the husband's motion for partial summary judgment (see, Dankner v. Szurzan Dorf, Inc., 226 A.D.2d 669; Welch Foods, Inc. v. Wilson, 247 A.D.2d 830). We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing.

  4. Natale v. Jeffrey Samel Associates

    (N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 2, 1999)

    A motion to renew is intended to draw the court's attention to new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time of the original motion, were unknown to the party seeking renewal and therefore not brought to the court's attention ( see, William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v. Kassis, 182 A.D.2d 22). Here, the additional facts presented by the plaintiffs upon renewal should have been known to them at the time of the original motion, and they did not offer a valid explanation for failing to present these facts at the time of the original motion ( see, Danker v. Szurzan and Dorf, Inc., 226 A.D.2d 669). O'BRIEN, J.P., RITTER, JOY, ALTMAN, and SMITH, JJ., concur.

  5. Natale v. Jeffrey Samel Associates

    264 A.D.2d 384 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 22 times

    A motion to renew is intended to draw the court's attention to new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time of the original motion, were unknown to the party seeking renewal and therefore not brought to the court's attention ( see, Pahl Equip. Corp. v. Kassis, 182 A.D.2d 22). Here, the additional facts presented by the plaintiffs upon renewal should have been known to them at the time of the original motion, and they did not offer a valid explanation for failing to present these facts at the time of the original motion ( see, Danker v. Szurzan Dorf, 226 A.D.2d 669). O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

  6. Quigley v. State Office of Mental Health

    247 A.D.2d 528 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 1 times

    The defendants moved to renew their opposition to the plaintiffs' motion less than two weeks later, based on the affidavit of a New York State Office of Mental Health labor relations representative regarding the participation of union representatives at meetings held in 1994 concerning the anticipated consolidation of the State-operated psychiatric hospitals on Long Island. It is well settled that "where an application for leave to renew is 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'", renewal should be denied "`where the party fails to offer a valid excuse for not submitting the additional facts upon the original application'" ( Dankner v. Szurzan Dorf, 226 A.D.2d 669, 670, quoting Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568). The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants' motion to renew.

  7. Dembeck v. 220 Central Park South, LLC

    2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 30335 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)

    These documents indicate plans by defendant to renovate the service elevator prior to plaintiff's renewal of her lease with defendant, and therefore, plaintiff argues, establishes fraud by defendant. A motion for leave to renew under CPLR ยง 2221 is intended to draw the court's attention to new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time of the original motion, were unknown to the party seeking renewal and, therefore, not brought to the court's attention ( Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558 [1st Dept 1979]; see also Dankner v Szurzan and Dorf, Inc., 226 AD2d 669 [2d Dept 1996]). Plaintiff's application for leave to renew is granted.