Feldstein v. Rounick
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ellner v. Schwed (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Swedish v. Beizer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Yudkovich v. Boguslavsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Elliot v. Long Island Home, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Allied International Development, Ltd. v. Barson Composite Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Pashayan v. Corson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- TPZ Corp. v. Winant Place Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Exeter Holding, Ltd. v. Morway Builders & Developers, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In an action, inter aha, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant Ulysses I & Company, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), dated January 25, 2002, which denied its motion for leave to renew a prior motion which was determined in an order of the same court, dated October 2, 2001.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the appellant Ulysses I & Company, Inc., which was for leave to renew a motion previously denied by the same court by order dated October 2, 2001. “A motion for leave to renew generally must be based upon additional material facts which existed at the time the prior motion was made but were not then known to the party seeking leave to renew and, therefore, not made known to the court. Renewal should be denied where the party fails to offer a valid excuse for not submitting the additional facts upon the original application” (LaRosa v Trapani, 271 AD2d 506; see also Louros v Parmiter, 288 AD2d 273; CPLR 2221 [e]). The appellant offered no such excuse. Furthermore, the motion for leave to renew was not supported by new facts or information which could not have been submitted on the previous motion (see Louros v Parmiter, supra; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558).
The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., O’Brien, H. Miller and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.