Plaintiff's latest motion was not based upon new facts (CPLR 2221 [e] [2])—the physician's affirmation he submitted was dated December 9, 2003—and plaintiff did not explain his failure to present such facts on the prior motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). Hence, leave to renew was properly denied (see e.g. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v United States Fid. & Guar. Co.,
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.