Key Takeaway
Court denies plaintiff's motion to renew lost summary judgment motion 12 years later in premises liability case, highlighting strict standards for post-appellate renewal motions.
Abrams v Berelson, 2012 NY Slip Op 02618 (2d Dept. 2012)
Plaintiff attempted to renew a lost motion for summary judgment in a premises liability case, 12 years after the lost motion. The Court affirmed the denial of renewal and in a 3-2 decision stated:
“Many of the efforts made by the plaintiffs and other individuals to locate Torres, which are relied upon by the dissent, occurred after the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was decided, and, therefore, do not constitute reasonable justification for their failure to present Torres’ affidavit “on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221). Moreover, the plaintiffs, who did not move to vacate the judgment until six months after locating Torres, failed to meet their “heavy burden” of showing due diligence in presenting the new evidence to the Supreme Court once it was obtained”
The dissent is interesting, and even held that Plaintiff satisfied the following:
“Pursuant to CPLR 2221(e), a motion for leave to renew shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination … and … shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion’” (Andrews v New York City Hous. Auth., 90 AD3d 962, 963, quoting CPLR 2221, ). “n postappeal motion the bears a heavy burden of showing due diligence in presenting the new evidence to the Supreme Court in order to imbue the appellate decision with a degree of certainty” (Andrews v New York City Hous. Auth., 90 AD3d at 963 ; see Estate of Essig v 5670 58 St. Holding Corp., 66 AD3d 822, 823; Levitt v County of Suffolk, 166 AD2d 421, 423). ” A motion for leave to renew is addressed to the sound discretion of the court’” (Hamlet at Willow Cr. Dev. Co., LLC v Northeast Land Dev. Corp., 64 AD3d 85, 100, quoting Matheus v Weiss, 20 AD3d 454, 454—455; see Lardo v Rivlab Transp. Corp., 46 AD3d 759, 759; Mi Ja Lee v Glicksman, 14 AD3d 669, 670).”
Related Articles
- Causation, renewal motions and potential Court of Appeals review
- Granting leave to renew when improper affirmations are presented
- Understanding CPLR 2221(a) motions to vacate court orders
- Motion to reargue and the 30-day filing requirement
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 decision, CPLR 2221 governing motions to renew may have been subject to amendments or judicial interpretation changes, particularly regarding the standards for “reasonable justification” and “due diligence” in presenting new evidence. Additionally, appellate courts may have refined the requirements for post-appellate renewal motions and the timeframes for bringing such motions. Practitioners should verify current CPLR 2221 provisions and recent case law interpreting renewal motion standards.
