Ordered that the order dated April 9, 2009, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was for leave to reargue. The defendant clearly demonstrated that the Supreme Court either overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts and law (see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]; Long v Long,
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.