Opinion
5325 Index 650889/13
01-02-2018
John KOEPPEL, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Michael H. Zhu, P.C., New York (Michael H. Zhu of counsel), for appellant. Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg LLP, Chicago IL (Andrew Spangler of the bar of the State of Illinois admitted pro hac vice of counsel), for respondents.
Michael H. Zhu, P.C., New York (Michael H. Zhu of counsel), for appellant.
Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg LLP, Chicago IL (Andrew Spangler of the bar of the State of Illinois admitted pro hac vice of counsel), for respondents.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Gesmer, Oing, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered on or about February 24, 2017, which denied plaintiff's motion for leave to renew defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
This Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for failure to allege facts from which it could be inferred that defendants participated in plaintiff's business partners' alleged scheme to defraud plaintiff out of his ownership of a Volkswagen dealership ( 128 A.D.3d 441, 6 N.Y.S.3d 481 [1st Dept. 2015] ). Thereafter, this Court affirmed denial of plaintiff's first motion for renewal ( 145 A.D.3d 436, 41 N.Y.S.3d 702 [1st Dept. 2016] ). Plaintiff again seeks renewal, this time on the basis of emails between his former business partners and an employee of defendants, claiming they are proof that defendants were part of the scheme.
Plaintiff again has failed to provide reasonable justification for his failure to present the new evidence on defendants' motion ( CPLR 2221[e][3] ). Further, the new facts, even if considered, do not change the original determination ( CPLR 2221[e][2] ). The emails contain no facts establishing that defendants knew of the alleged fraud.