From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weisse v. Kamhi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 1987
129 A.D.2d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

April 20, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Because the plaintiff's motion was based, in part, upon evidence which had not been before the court at the time of the original motion, it was a motion to renew (see, Wile v Wile, 100 A.D.2d 932, 934). Although leave to renew should generally be denied where the movant fails to offer a reasonable excuse for the failure to submit the additional facts on the original motion (see, Caffe v Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 352), a court may, in its discretion, "grant renewal even upon facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion" (Esa v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 89 A.D.2d 865, 866; see also, Pinto v Pinto, 120 A.D.2d 337; Jet Asphalt Corp. v Consolidated Edison Co., 114 A.D.2d 489; Vitale v La Cour, 96 A.D.2d 941). We cannot say that the granting of renewal in this case constituted an improvident exercise of discretion. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Weisse v. Kamhi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 20, 1987
129 A.D.2d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Weisse v. Kamhi

Case Details

Full title:THEODORE H. WEISSE, Respondent, v. EDOUARD KAMHI et al., Appellants, et…

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

Date published: Apr 20, 1987

Citations

129 A.D.2d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Wodecki v. Carty

The plaintiff's motion, although characterized as one for renewal and reargument of the defendants' motion…

Williams v. Bryant

Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs. The appellants' application for reconsideration…