From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Leonard Fuchs v. Laser Processing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 14, 1995
222 A.D.2d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

December 14, 1995

Appeal from the Civil Court, New York County (Jay Stuart Dankberg, J.).


A motion to renew should not be granted based upon evidence known to the moving party at the time of the original motion unless the moving party offers a reasonable excuse for not having submitted such evidence on the original motion ( Halliday v Halliday, 218 A.D.2d 729; Segall v Heyer, 161 A.D.2d 471). We agree with the Appellate Term that no such excuse was offered here.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Leonard Fuchs v. Laser Processing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 14, 1995
222 A.D.2d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Leonard Fuchs v. Laser Processing Corp.

Case Details

Full title:LEONARD FUCHS, INC., Respondent, v. LASER PROCESSING CORP. et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 14, 1995

Citations

222 A.D.2d 280 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
635 N.Y.S.2d 224

Citing Cases

Verdugo v. Seven Thirty One Ltd. Partnership

ewly discovered facts that were not previously available or a sufficient explanation is made why they could…

POAG v. ATKINS

The related yet distinct motion for leave to reargue is not implicated by the movant's application, and,…