Renewal grantedJune 11, 2016

Provek Plus, Inc. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 50870(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2015)

“While a court has discretion to entertain renewal based on facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion, the movant must set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to submit the information in the first instance (see Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v Ghaness, 100 AD3d 585, 585-586 [2012]). Here, defendant submitted an affidavit explaining that the affidavit of defendant’s mail clerk, which was submitted in support of defendant’s prior motion for summary judgment, contained an inadvertent typographical error with respect to the date on which the mail clerk was first employed by defendant. As a result, leave to renew should have been granted (see Miller v Duffy, 162 AD2d 438 [1990]; Olean Urban Renewal Agency v Herman, 101 AD2d 712 [*2][1984]).”

That does happen every so often.  A name, date or other information inadvertantly lands in an affidavit.  Parties try to jump on the defect and state that the world is over due to that mistake.  The Court here gave the carrier a second chance, and rightfully so.  Nobody is perfect.