green
Positive treatment
2.1 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Title North, Inc.
As limited by their brief, plaintiffs now appeal from that part of the order denying them leave to renew, 3 and we affirm. “ ‘This Court has consistently held that a motion to renew must be based upon newly discovered evidence which existed at the time the prior motion was made, but was unknown to the party seeking renewal, along with a justifiable excuse as to why the new information was not previously submitted’ ” (Davidson v Ambrozewicz, 23 AD3d 903, 903 [2005], quoting Wahl v Grippen, 305 AD2d 707, 707 [2003]; see Matter of Cooke Ctr. for Learning & Dev. v Mills, 19 AD3d 834, 837 […
discussed
Cited "see"
Lamar Advertising of Penn, LLC v. Village of Marathon
Failure to comply with this provision “is not a mere procedural irregularity, but rather ... a jurisdictional defect involving the validity of a legislative act” (Matter of Zelnick v Small, 268 AD2d 527, 529 [2000]; see Matter of Eastport Alli ance v Lo faro, 13 AD3d 527, 528-529 [2004], lvs dismissed 5 NY3d 846, 847 [2005]; Matter of Ernalex Constr.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Cooke Center for Learning and Development
v.
Richard P. Mills, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York
v.
Richard P. Mills, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 27, 2005.
839 N.E.2d 900
Published
Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from so much of the Appellate Division order as affirmed Supreme Court’s order denying appellant’s motion to renew, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.