Reaffirming Procedural Rigor: Limitations on Renew and Reargue Motions in Legal Malpractice Cases

Reaffirming Procedural Rigor: Limitations on Renew and Reargue Motions in Legal Malpractice Cases

Introduction

In the case of Milennium Development & Construction, LLC, et al. v. Douglas Pick, et al. (2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 853), the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, addressed critical procedural issues in a legal malpractice action. The litigation arose out of a dispute regarding untimely service of a complaint and has broader implications for motions under CPLR 3012(b) and 3012(d). The key parties include the plaintiffs (Milennium Development & Construction, LLC, et al.), who initiated the action, and the defendants (Douglas Pick, et al.), who were represented in part by Pick & Zabicki LLP. This decision specifically scrutinizes the appropriateness of allowing leave to renew and reargue motions based on previously submitted and known facts.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court reversed a June 7, 2022 order that had granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew and reargue the earlier decision regarding the service of the complaint. The original order from July 16, 2021, which had granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to timely serve a complaint and denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion for leave to file a late complaint, was reinstated. The Court’s decision hinged on the determination that the plaintiffs improperly attempted to reintroduce facts already known at the time of the original motions and failed to provide a sufficient justification for their late disclosure. As a result, the plaintiffs’ motions were denied in both branches—renewal and reargument.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment draws on several precedents that shape the court’s approach to motions for leave to renew and reargue:

  • Constructamax, Inc. v. Dodge Chamberlin Luzine Weber, Assoc. Architects, LLP – This case emphasizes that any motion for leave to renew must be based on new facts that were not presented in the original motion. The current case strongly relies on Constructamax to highlight that a motion for renewal is not a mechanism to repackage old arguments.
  • JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Novis – This precedent clarifies that there must be a “reasonable justification” for not presenting pertinent facts during the original motion. The court in the present case pointed to this requirement when assessing the plaintiffs’ failure to justify the exclusion of information in the original filing.
  • HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Shahid and Hernandez v. Nwaishienyi – Both cases highlight the necessity for demonstrating diligence in presenting facts from the outset. The judicial reliance on these cases underscores the high standard expected of parties seeking to renew their motions.
  • Sokolnik v. Voronova – This decision sets the limitation that a motion to reargue must be confined to issues of fact or law that were either overlooked or misapprehended in the original determination. The current judgment leverages this principle to deny the plaintiffs’ reargument motion.
  • Degraw Constr. Group, Inc. v. McGowan Bldrs., Inc. and Fein v. Fein – These cases contribute to the framework by emphasizing that motions for leave to reargue should not extend to new factual matters beyond what was initially presented.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded along two primary axes:

  1. Renewal Motion Analysis: The court examined the plaintiffs’ attempt to renew their opposition to the defendants’ dismissal motion under CPLR 3012(b) and cross-motion under CPLR 3012(d). Although the plaintiffs introduced additional details and new facts, the court found that these new facts were known before the original motions were made. As established in Constructamax and JPMorgan Chase precedents, such new facts were not sufficient to justify a renewal when there was no reasonable explanation for the delay in disclosing them.
  2. Reargument Motion Analysis: When assessing the reargument motion, the court emphasized that this procedure is limited to instances where the court might have overlooked or misapprehended legal or factual issues previously. Since the plaintiffs conceded that no material oversight or error had occurred in the original decision, the motion for reargument was denied based on the boundary set by Sokolnik.

The synthesis of these two analyses led the court to reverse the June 7, 2022 order and reinstate the earlier decision made on July 16, 2021, reaffirming the procedural stringent requirements for such motions.

Impact

The ruling serves as an important clarion call for strict adherence to procedural rules governing leave to renew and reargue motions. By reinforcing the principle that parties must present all pertinent facts at the initial stage of litigation, the judgment is likely to:

  • Deter attorneys from strategically withholding information with the aim of reintroducing it later under the guise of “new facts.”
  • Promote greater diligence in initial filings, thereby reducing circuitous litigation and potential judicial inefficiencies.
  • Set a precedent for future cases in legal malpractice and other areas where procedural motions are involved, ensuring that courts maintain a narrow interpretation of leave to renew and reargue.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The decision revolves around two key legal procedures:

  • Leave to Renew: This is a request by a party to bring new evidentiary facts that were not part of the original motion. However, it is only granted if these facts were truly new and not previously known. In this case, the facts were not new, and there was no valid reason for their late presentation.
  • Leave to Reargue: This motion allows a party to argue that the court misunderstood or overlooked key aspects of the law or facts initially presented. The limitation is that one cannot bring entirely new arguments or facts. Here, because the plaintiffs admitted that nothing was overlooked in the original review, their request to reargue was rejected.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court's decision in Milennium Development & Construction, LLC, et al. v. Douglas Pick, et al. reinforces the strict thresholds for mobilizing leave to renew and reargue motions. Parties are reminded of their duty to present all material facts at the initial stage of proceedings, and any attempt to reintroduce known information without adequate justification will likely be disfavored. This ruling not only upholds procedural integrity in legal malpractice actions but also serves as an influential precedent for ensuring diligence and timely disclosure in litigation strategies. The clarity provided by this judgment will undoubtedly influence future case management and adjudication within the sphere of New York civil litigation.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Judge(s)

Mark C. Dillon

Attorney(S)

Pick & Zabicki LLP, New York, NY (Eric C. Zabicki of counsel), appellant pro se and for appellant Douglas Pick. William E. Betz, Garden City, NY, for respondents.

Comments