Opinion

Brown v. Citibank, N.A.

  • 5 A.D.3d 342
  • 772 N.Y.S.2d 528
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
Mar 1, 2004
Status
Published
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 71.2%

The opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring null and void a stipulation of settlement and quitclaim deed, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated February 18, 2003, which denied their motion for leave to renew their prior motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Since the allegedly new and additional facts proffered by the plaintiffs in support of their motion for leave to renew were *343 readily available at the time of their original motion, they did not constitute newly-discovered evidence within the meaning of CPLR 2221 (see Guerrero v Dublin Up Corp. of N.Y., 260 AD2d 435 [1999]). Thus, on this record, including the plaintiffs’ failure to proffer a reasonable excuse for not having included the omitted information in their original motion, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying their motion for leave to renew. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.