IN RE COLONIAL PENN INS. v. NEVELUS

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

2001-05100

Attorney(S)

Martyn, Toher, Esposito Martyn, Mineola, N.Y. (Michael G. Conway of counsel), for appellant. Bryan M. Rothenberg, Mineola, N.Y. (Joseph Candela of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

IN THE MATTER OF COLONIAL PENN INSURANCE COMPANY, petitioner-respondent, v. JACQUES NEVELUS, respondent-respondent, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, appellant.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion which was, in effect, for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for leave to reargue; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the petitioner-respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

A motion for leave to renew should be denied unless the moving party offers a reasonable justification as to why the new facts were not submitted on the prior motion (see, CPLR 2221[e]; Palmer v. Toledo, 266 A.D.2d 268). The appellant failed to offer a reasonable justification for its failure to submit its newly-acquired evidence with its original opposition to the petition. Thus, that branch of the motion which was for leave to renew was properly denied (see, Home Sav. Bank v. Watersedge Estates, Inc., 288 A.D.2d 266; Matter of Goetschius v. Board of Educ. of Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School Dist., 281 A.D.2d 418).

SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and CRANE, JJ., concur.

IN THE MATTER OF COLONIAL PENN INSURANCE COMPANY, petitioner-respondent, v. JACQUES NEVELUS, respondent-respondent, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, appellant.

Comments