Key Takeaway
Court grants reargument when it reviews the merits of a motion, even without formally stating so. Learn how this procedural principle works in practice.
Understanding When Courts Grant Reargument: The Budoff Case Analysis
Reargument motions are a critical procedural tool in New York litigation, allowing parties to ask a court to reconsider its previous decision based on legal arguments that were allegedly overlooked or misapprehended. However, determining when a court has actually “granted” reargument isn’t always straightforward, as the Budoff v City of New York case demonstrates.
The concept of reargument differs from renewal, which allows parties to present new evidence or address procedural defects. While renewal focuses on correcting substantive or procedural issues—such as when a plaintiff is given a second chance to correct the form of his papers—reargument specifically targets the court’s understanding of legal principles or factual matters already in the record.
In Budoff, the Second Department clarified an important procedural nuance: a court can effectively grant reargument simply by reviewing the merits of the arguments presented, even without explicitly stating that reargument has been granted. This distinction matters because it affects how appellate courts review lower court decisions and can impact a party’s ability to seek further relief.
Understanding this principle is particularly valuable in no-fault insurance litigation and personal injury cases, where procedural technicalities can significantly impact case outcomes. The Budoff ruling provides clarity on when practitioners can consider their reargument motions to have been substantively addressed, even absent formal procedural declarations.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Budoff v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05817 (2d Dept. 2018)
“As the Supreme Court reviewed the merits of the plaintiff’s contentions raised in his motion for leave to reargue, “the court, in effect, granted reargument and adhered to its original determination”…
Key Takeaway
The Budoff decision establishes that courts grant reargument not through formal declarations, but through substantive action—specifically, by reviewing the merits of the arguments presented in the reargument motion. This means practitioners should focus on whether the court meaningfully considered their legal contentions rather than looking for explicit procedural language. This principle provides important guidance for determining when reargument has been effectively addressed, which can influence subsequent appellate strategies and help attorneys better understand their procedural posture in ongoing litigation.
