Motion to Renew or Reargue in New York

What Is a Motion to Renew or Reargue?

How to Structure the Motion

N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 2221 concerns motions affecting prior orders and states:

  1. A motion for leave to renew or to reargue a prior motion, for leave to appeal from, or to stay, vacate or modify, an order shall be made, on notice, to the judge who signed the order, unless he or she is for any reason unable to hear it, except that:
    1. if the order was made upon a default such motion may be made, on notice, to any judge of the court; and
    2. if the order was made without notice such motion may be made, without notice, to the judge who signed it, or, on notice, to any other judge of the court.
  2. Rules of the chief administrator of the courts. The chief administrator may by rule exclude motions within a department, district or county from the operation of subdivision (a) of this rule.
  3. A motion made to other than a proper judge under this rule shall be transferred to the proper judge.
  4. A motion for leave to reargue:
    1. shall be identified specifically as such;
    2. shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion; and
    3. shall be made within thirty days after service of a copy of the order determining the prior motion and written notice of its entry. This rule shall not apply to motions to reargue a decision made by the appellate division or the court of appeals.
  5. A motion for leave to renew:
    1. shall be identified specifically as such;
    2. shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination; and
    3. shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion.
  6. A combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew shall identify separately and support separately each item of relief sought. The court, in determining a combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew, shall decide each part of the motion as if it were separately made. If a motion for leave to reargue or leave to renew is granted, the court may adhere to the determination on the original motion or may alter that determination.

The Court’s Decision

Motion to Renew

A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts. The movant must introduce facts that were not presented on the prior motion which would alter the court's earlier determination (In re Schwartz (2018) File No. 2015-384840/K, at *6 citing CPLR 2221(e).) A movant on a motion to renew must demonstrate a reasonable justification for not placing such alleged additional facts before the court on the original motion. (CPLR 2221(e)(3))

The court has repeatedly held that the additional evidence offered on a motion to renew must be either newly discovered or have been unavailable to the movant at the time of the prior application (See Winograd v. Neiman Marcus Group (2004) 11 A.D.3d 455; Seltzer v City of New York (2001) 288 A.D.2d 207; Delvecchio v Bayside Chrysler Plymouth Jeep Eagle (2000) 271 A.D.2d 636.)

Motion to Reargue

In Peak v. Northway Travel Trailers, Inc., the court explained that “[i]t is well settled that a motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and is properly granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts and/or the law or mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision.” (Peak v. Northway Travel Trailers, Inc. (1999) 260 A.D.2d 840, 842.)

A motion to reargue is based upon a mistake by the court. It is not based upon any new facts, but instead seeks to convince the court that it “overlooked or misapprehended the facts or the law on the prior motion, or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision.” (In re Schwartz (2018) File No. 2015-384840/K, at *6 citing CPLR 2221(d)); see also Bolos v Staten Island Hosp. (1995) 217 A.D.2d 643; Schneider v Solowey (1998) 141 A.D.2d 813.)

A motion to reargue is not to be used as a means by which an unsuccessful party is permitted to argue again the same issues previously decided. (McGill v Goldman (1998) 261 A.D. 593, citing William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis (1992) 182 A.D.2d 22.) Nor does it provide an unsuccessful party with a second opportunity to present new or different arguments from those originally asserted. (See Giovanniello v Carolina Wholesale Off. Mach. Co., Inc. (2006) 29 A.D.3d 737; Gellert & Rodner v Gem Community Mgt., Inc. (2005) 20 A.D.3d 388.)

Documents

1-10 of 10000 results

Case Filed

Jun 24, 2021

Case Status

Active

County

Queens County, NY

Filed Date

Aug 04, 2022

Judge Hon. Timothy J Dufficy Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Timothy J Dufficy
County

Richmond County, NY

Filed Date

Aug 04, 2022

Type

Commercial - Insurance

Judge Hon. Alan C Marin Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Alan C Marin
County

Suffolk County, NY

Filed Date

Aug 03, 2022

Judge Hon. Kathy G Bergmann Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Kathy G Bergmann
County

Richmond County, NY

Filed Date

Aug 03, 2022

Type

Commercial - Insurance

Judge Hon. Alan C Marin Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Alan C Marin
County

Nassau County, NY

Filed Date

Aug 03, 2022

Type

Other Matters - Contract - Other

Judge Hon. Denise Sher Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Denise Sher
Case Filed

Jun 14, 2019

Case Status

Active

County

New York County, NY

Filed Date

Aug 03, 2022

Type

Torts - Other (Intentional Tort: Rape)

Judge Hon. Shlomo S. Hagler Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Shlomo S. Hagler
County

Suffolk County, NY

Filed Date

Aug 03, 2022

Judge Hon. Kathy G Bergmann Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Kathy G Bergmann
Case Filed

May 19, 2021

Case Status

Active

County

Saratoga County, NY

Filed Date

Aug 02, 2022

Judge

James E Walsh

County

Nassau County, NY

Filed Date

Aug 02, 2022

Judge Hon. Erica L Prager Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Erica L Prager

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope