Levitin v. A.R.B. Management Services, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
In an action, inter alia, to recover
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 [2007]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Carni, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.