Regardless of whether petitioners' motion should have been styled as one to vacate a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) rather than one to renew pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e) (2), it was properly denied. The only "new" fact tendered by petitioners, namely, a recent California judgment, was already before the IAS Court on the original motion, as embodied in the California court's interlocutory orders, of which the IAS Court had already taken notice. In view of the California...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
