Onglingswan v Chase Home Fin., LLC
Decided on March 19, 2013
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Andrias, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered October 4, 2011, which granted plaintiff's motion to renew and reargue prior motions for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion to renew and reargue denied.
Although plaintiff's motion for reargument was untimely, the court had discretion to reconsider its prior order (see Kleinser v Astarita, 61 AD3d 597, 598 [1st Dept 2009]). In any event, the motion should have been denied because plaintiff sought to improperly advance new theories that had not been set forth on the initial motion (see DeSoignies v Cornasesk House Tenants' Corp., 21 AD3d 715, 718 [1st Dept 2005]). The motion to renew also should have been denied, given the absence of any justification for not submitting the purportedly new evidence on the initial motion (see James v 1620 Westchester Ave., LLC, -- AD3d --, 2013 NY Slip Op 00807, *4 [1st Dept 2013]). Further, the circumstances did not warrant renewal in the interest of justice (cf. Garner v Latimer, 306 AD2d 209, 210 [1st Dept 2003]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...