Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010

Nelson v. Allstate Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 11, 2010

73 A.D.3d 929; 901 N.Y.S.2d 329

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Prakope v. Public Stor. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Betz v. Blatt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Pastore v. Utilimaster Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Cullin v. Lynch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Trawinski v. Jabir & Farag Properties, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Jaronczyk v. Mangano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Weisz v. Weisz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
New York Telephone Co. v. Supervisor of Hempstead (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
New York Telephone Co. v. Supervisor of Hempstead (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Carbone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
In re Carbone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Doviak v. Finkelstein & Partners, LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
New York Racing Ass'n v. Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)

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 a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rucheslman, J.), dated March S, 2009, which denied her motion for leave to renew her motion, in effect, to extend, nunc pro tunc, her time to serve the petition, which had been determined in an order of the same court dated September 26, 2006.

Ordered that the order dated March 3, 2009, is affirmed, with costs.

A motion for leave to renew must be (1) based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination, and (2) set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]; Novosiadlyi v James, 70 AD3d 793, 794 [2010]; Baldwin v Mateogarcia, 66 AD3d 806, 806-807 [2009]). Here, the new facts submitted by the petitioner did not warrant a change in the Supreme Court’s original determination, and the *930petitioner did not offer a reasonable justification for her failure to present those facts when she made her initial motion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petitioner’s motion for leave to renew (see generally Development Strategies Co., LLC, Profit Sharing Plan v Astoria Equities, Inc., 71 AD3d 628 [2010]; Matter of Korman v Bellmore Pub. Schools, 62 AD3d 882, 884 [2009]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions either refer to matter dehors the record or are otherwise not properly before us on this appeal. Rivera, J.P., Fisher, Florio and Austin, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.