Choy v. Mai Ling Lai
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Abrams v. Berelson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Ward (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Hudson City Savings Bank v. 59 Sands Point, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Lindbergh v. SHLO 54, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Professional Offshore Opportunity Fund, Ltd. v. Braider (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Ali v. Verizon New York, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Ali v. Verizon New York, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Rosenberg v. Piller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Rosenberg v. Piller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Fales v. Fales (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Fales v. Fales (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Specialized Realty Services, LLC v. Town of Tuxedo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Specialized Realty Services, LLC v. Town of Tuxedo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Kim v. State Street Hospitality, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- DeMarquez v. Gallo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Jovanovic v. Jovanovic (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Jovanovic v. Jovanovic (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re Iceland Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re Iceland Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Rakha v. Pinnacle Bus Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Rakha v. Pinnacle Bus Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
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
A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]) and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; see Barnett v Smith, 64 AD3d 669, 670 [2009]; Chernysheva v Pinchuck, 57 AD3d 936, 937 [2008]). Here, that branch of the father’s motion which was for leave to renew his motion to vacate the support order dated June 26, 2008, was properly denied by the Support Magistrate, as the allegedly new facts offered would not have changed the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]).
The father’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court. Angiolillo, J.E, Lott, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.