From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Osmers v. Hassett Lincoln Merc. SLS

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 2003
309 A.D.2d 806 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2003-02310

Argued September 9, 2003.

October 14, 2003.

In a proceeding pursuant to Lien Law § 201-a to cancel a lien, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated March 7, 2003, as denied that branch of his motion as was for leave to renew the petition.

McCabe, Collins, McGeough Fowler, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Patrick J. Engle of counsel), for appellant.

Boland Ialenti, Garden City, N.Y. (Donald J. Boland of counsel), for respondent Hassett Lincoln Mercury Sales, Inc.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioner failed to set forth a reasonable justification why the additional facts offered in support of that branch of his motion which was for leave to renew were not offered in support of his original application ( see CPLR 2221[e]; Barbuto v. Winthrop University Hosp., 305 A.D.2d 623; Elias v. Grossman, 306 A.D.2d 432; Matter of Orange Rockland Utils. v. Assessor of Town of Haverstraw, 304 A.D.2d 668). Accordingly, leave to renew was properly denied.

RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In re Osmers v. Hassett Lincoln Merc. SLS

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 2003
309 A.D.2d 806 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

In re Osmers v. Hassett Lincoln Merc. SLS

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT J. OSMERS, appellant, v. HASSETT LINCOLN MERCURY…

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

Date published: Oct 14, 2003

Citations

309 A.D.2d 806 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
765 N.Y.S.2d 797