From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Samuel v. A.R.B

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 2008
48 A.D.3d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2007-00202.

February 26, 2008.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a commercial lease, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (O. Bellantoni, J.), entered December 5, 2006, which denied his motion for leave to renew that branch of his prior motion which was for an installment payment order pursuant to CPLR 5226, which had been denied in an order of same court dated November 17, 2005.

Elhilow Maiocchi, LLP, Hawthorne, N.Y. (Joseph L. Genzano of counsel), for appellant.

Estrin Benn, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Patrick Benn of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Carni, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew because he failed to present "new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination" (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; see Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 37 AD3d 594).


Summaries of

Samuel v. A.R.B

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 2008
48 A.D.3d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Samuel v. A.R.B

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL J. LEVITIN, Doing Business as S.J.L. MANAGEMENT, Appellant, v…

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

Date published: Feb 26, 2008

Citations

48 A.D.3d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 1718
851 N.Y.S.2d 378

Citing Cases

In re Tillman

A motion for leave to renew "shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change…

Gurman v. Fotiades

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for leave to renew their prior motion to vacate a…