Key Takeaway
Court grants renewal motion to correct typographical error in affidavit, demonstrating judicial discretion when parties show reasonable justification for mistakes.
Legal proceedings aren’t immune to human error, and courts recognize this reality when parties make honest mistakes in their paperwork. The question becomes: when should a court allow a “do-over” through a renewal motion? New York courts have established clear standards for when parties can correct errors in their original submissions, balancing the need for finality in litigation with fairness when genuine mistakes occur.
In no-fault insurance litigation, where technical details and precise documentation are crucial, even minor errors in affidavits can become significant issues. The case of Provek Plus, Inc. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. illustrates how courts handle situations where parties discover errors in their original motion papers and seek permission to correct them.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
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 ). 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 ; Olean Urban Renewal Agency v Herman, 101 AD2d 712 [*2]).”
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.
Understanding Renewal Motions
Renewal motions allow parties to ask a court to reconsider a decision based on new facts or evidence that was available at the time of the original motion but wasn’t presented. The key requirement is showing a reasonable justification for why the information wasn’t included initially. This case demonstrates the court’s willingness to grant relief when parties can show their error was truly inadvertent, similar to situations we’ve seen where plaintiffs are given a second chance to correct the form of their papers.
The court’s approach here reflects a practical understanding that litigation involves human beings who make mistakes. Rather than allowing technical errors to derail otherwise valid claims or defenses, courts exercise their discretion to ensure that cases are decided on their merits rather than on paperwork mishaps. This principle has been consistently applied in various contexts, including situations where renewal is allowed to correct technical hiccups.
Key Takeaway
Courts will grant renewal motions to correct honest mistakes in affidavits when parties provide reasonable justification for the error. The Provek Plus decision reinforces that technical defects shouldn’t prevent cases from being decided on their substantive merits, provided the requesting party can demonstrate their mistake was inadvertent rather than strategic.
