Renna v. Gullo, 19 A.D.3d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Renna v. Gullo, 19 A.D.3d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
91 citation events (91 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mone (nyappdiv, 2020-07-01) · Strongest negative: 125 Ct. St., LLC v. Nicholson (nyappterm, 2019-12-20)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 44 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "but see" 125 Ct. St., LLC v. Nicholson (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Term. · 2019 · signal: but see · confidence high
In any event, "[a] motion to renew is intended to draw the court's attention to new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time of the original motion, were unknown to the party seeking leave to renew and therefore not brought to the court's attention" ( Natale v Samel & Assoc. , 264 AD2d 384, 385 [1999]). "[T]his requirement is a flexible one and the court, in its discretion, may grant renewal, in the interest of justice, upon facts which were known to the movant where the movant offers a reasonable justification for failing to submit them on the earlier motion" ( Gomez v Nee…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mone
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
"A motion to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation'" ( Sobin v Tylutki , 59 AD3d 701, 702 , quoting Renna v Gullo , 19 AD3d 472, 473 [*3][internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ascentium Capital, LLC v. Empire Med. Servs. of Long Is., P.C.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
"A motion to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation'" ( Sobin v Tylutki , 59 AD3d 701, 702 , quoting Renna v Gullo , 19 AD3d 472, 473 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kio Seob Kim v. Malwon, LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Here, in support of that branch of its motion which was for leave to renew, the defendant submitted additional facts known to it at the time of the prior motion and cross motion without demonstrating a reasonable justification for failing to submit them on the earlier motion and cross motion (see Wells Fargo Bank v Allen, 130 AD3d 717, 718 [2015]; Sobin v Tylutki, 59 AD3d at 702 ; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 472 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Donovan v. Rizzo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
“A motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” (Worrell v Parkway Estates, LLC, 43 AD3d at 437 ; see Okumus v Living Room Steak House, Inc., 112 AD3d at 799 ; Sobin v Tylutki, 59 AD3d 701, 702 [2009]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pacheco v. Halsted Communications, Ltd.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Corp., 46 AD3d 759, 760 [2007]). “[A] motion for leave to renew ‘is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation’ ” (Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005], quoting Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328, 329 [1996]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Weisz v. Weisz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Corp., 69 AD3d 565, 566 [2010]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]; Mollin v County of Nassau, 2 AD3d 600, 601 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Jaronczyk v. Mangano
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Here, because the appellants failed either to proffer a reasonable justification for omitting the alleged new evidence from their initial opposition or to demonstrate that the evidence would have changed the court’s determination, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of their motion which was for leave to renew their opposition to the petition (see Jovanovic v Jovanovic, 96 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2012]; Rowe v NYCPD, 85 AD3d 1001, 1003 [2011]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Singh v. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
“A motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” (Worrell v Parkway Estates, LLC, 43 AD3d at 437 ; see Okumus v Living Room Steak House, Inc., 112 AD3d at 799 ; Sobin v Tylutki, 59 AD3d 701, 702 [2009]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vieyra v. Penn Toyota, Ltd.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Although the requirement that a motion for leave to renew should be based on new facts is a flexible one, a motion for leave to renew “ ‘is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation’ ” (Yebo v Cuadra, 98 AD3d 504 , 506 [2012], quoting Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vieyra v. Penn Toyota, Ltd.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Although the requirement that a motion for leave to renew should be based on new facts is a flexible one, a motion for leave to renew “ ‘is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation’ ” (Yebo v Cuadra, 98 AD3d 504 , 506 [2012], quoting Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Okumus v. Living Room Steak House, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“A motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” (Worrell v Parkway Estates, 43 AD3d at 437; see Sobin v Tylutki, 59 AD3d 701, 702 [2009]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Okumus v. Living Room Steak House, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
“A motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” (Worrell v Parkway Estates, 43 AD3d at 437; see Sobin v Tylutki, 59 AD3d 701, 702 [2009]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Carbone
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Corp., 69 AD3d 565, 566 [2010]; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389, 391 [2008]; Renna v Güilo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Carbone
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Corp., 69 AD3d 565, 566 [2010]; Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 48 AD3d 389, 391 [2008]; Renna v Güilo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yebo v. Cuadra
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Nevertheless, a motion for leave to renew “is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” (Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Bazile v City of New York, 94 AD3d 929 [2012]; Andrews v New York City Hous.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yebo v. Cuadra
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Nevertheless, a motion for leave to renew “is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” (Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Bazile v City of New York, 94 AD3d 929 [2012]; Andrews v New York City Hous.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Wilkins
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“A motion ‘to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation’ ” (Sobin v Tylutki, 59 AD3d 701, 702 [2009], quoting Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Wilkins
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
“A motion ‘to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation’ ” (Sobin v Tylutki, 59 AD3d 701, 702 [2009], quoting Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jovanovic v. Jovanovic
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Although the requirement that a motion for renewal must be based on new facts is a flexible one (see DeMarquez v Gallo, 94 AD3d 1039 [2012]; Matter of Beren v Beren, 92 AD3d 676, 677 [2012]), a motion to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation, and the Supreme Court lacks discretion to grant renewal where the moving party omits a reasonable justification for failing to present the new facts on the original motion (see Bazile v City of New York, 94 AD3d 929 [2012]; Eskenazi v Mackoul, 92 AD3d 828, 829 […
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jovanovic v. Jovanovic
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Although the requirement that a motion for renewal must be based on new facts is a flexible one (see DeMarquez v Gallo, 94 AD3d 1039 [2012]; Matter of Beren v Beren, 92 AD3d 676, 677 [2012]), a motion to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation, and the Supreme Court lacks discretion to grant renewal where the moving party omits a reasonable justification for failing to present the new facts on the original motion (see Bazile v City of New York, 94 AD3d 929 [2012]; Eskenazi v Mackoul, 92 AD3d 828, 829 […
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bazile v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
A motion “to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” (Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eskenazi v. Mackoul
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Corp., 73 AD3d 1013 [2010]; Lawman v Gap, Inc., 38 AD3d 852 [2007]; Lafferty v Eklecco, LLC, 34 AD3d 754, 754-755 [2006]). “[A] motion for leave to renew ‘is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation’ ” (Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005], quoting Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328, 329 [1996]; see Coccia v Liotti, 70 AD3d 747, 753 [2010]; Huma v Patel, 68 AD3d 821, 822 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Andrews v. New York City Housing Authority
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
A “motion for leave to renew ‘is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation’ ” (Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 472 [2005], quoting Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328, 329 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leone Properties, LLC v. Board of Assessors
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
“A motion to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” (Sobin v Tylutki, 59 AD3d at 702 , quoting Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328, 329 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) May v. May
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Auth., 263 Ad2d 464 [1999]), “a motion for leave to renew ‘is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation’ ” (Renna v Güilo 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005], quoting Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328, 329 [1996]; see Coccia v Liotti, 70 AD3d 747, 752-753 [2010]; Huma v Patel, 68 AD3d at 822 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Huang v. Shih
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Notwithstanding their contentions that the Supreme Court raised certain issues sua sponte and that the death of a former attorney hampered their presentation of evidence, the sellers failed to offer a reasonable excuse for their failure to present the alleged new facts on the prior motion (see Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Coccia v. Liotti
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Corp., 255 AD2d 354 [1998]), a motion for leave to renew “ ‘is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation’ ” (Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005], quoting Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328, 329 [1996]; cf. CPLR 2221 [d] [2] [a motion for leave to reargue “shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion”]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Huma v. Patel
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Servs., 292 AD2d 410 . [2002]), a motion for leave to renew “is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” (Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Ramirez v Khan, 60 AD3d at 748 ; Sobin v Tylutki, 59 AD3d 701, 702 [2009]; Lardo v Rivlab Transp.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Essig v. 5670 58 Street Holding Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Here, the respondents failed to offer a reasonable explanation for their failure to present the “new facts” in conjunction either with their opposition to that branch of the plaintiffs’ prior motion which was for summary judgment on their declaratory judgment cause of action or with their first motion for leave to renew (see Elder v Elder, 21 AD3d 1055 [2005]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sobin v. Tylutki
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
A motion “to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” (Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005], quoting Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328, 329 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Spectrum Painting Contractors, Inc. v. Kreisler Borg Florman General Construction Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of Osborn’s motion which was for leave to renew on the ground that it failed to offer a reasonable excuse as to why it did not present the alleged new facts on the prior motion (see Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]; Natale v Samel & Assoc., 264 AD2d 384, 385 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kletnieks v. Hertz
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
A motion for leave to renew must (1) be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination, and (2) set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]; O’Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 631 [2006]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lardo v. Rivlab Transportation Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
A motion for leave to renew must be based upon “new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]) and must contain “reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; see Matter of Leyberman v Leyberman, 43 AD3d 925 [2007]; Worrell v Parkway Estates, LLC, 43 AD3d 436, 437 [2007]; O’Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 631 [2006]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]; O’Dell v Caswell, 12 AD3d 492 [2004]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Schlesinger v. Harleysville Worcester Insurance
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Co. v Davis, 23 AD3d 418, 419 [2005]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]; Natale v Samel & Assoc., 264 AD2d 384, 385 [1999]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Riglioni v. Chambers Ford Tractor Sales, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
“A motion for leave to renew must (1) be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination, and (2) set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (O’Connell v Post, 27 AD3d 631, 631 [2006]; see CPLR 2221 [e]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]). “ ‘Leave to renew is not warranted where the factual material adduced in connection with the subsequent motion is merely cumulative with respect to the factual material submitted in connection with the original motion’ ” (City of New York v …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wunsch v. Cerwinski
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
The defendant’s excuse for failing to present his own detailed affidavit and the affidavits of his parents in his original motion was not reasonable (see Johnson v Title N., Inc., 31 AD3d 1071, 1072 [2006]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Veitsman v. G & M Ambulette Service, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
“A motion for leave to renew must (1) be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination and (2) set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (O’Connell v Post, 27 AD 3d 631 [2006]; see CPLR 2221 [e]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bravo v. Rehman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court properly denied leave to renew on the ground that the plaintiff “failed to offer a reasonable justification” for not submitting the new information in opposition to the original motion (Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see" Spitz ex rel. Spitz v. Drew
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
“Amotion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” (E lder v Elder, 21 AD3d 1055, 1055 [2005]; see Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see" Spitz ex rel. Spitz v. Drew
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
“Amotion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” (E lder v Elder, 21 AD3d 1055, 1055 [2005]; see Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
cited Cited "see" Doviak v. Finkelstein & Partners, LLP
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
School Dist., 41 AD3d 486, 486 [2007]; see Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).
cited Cited "see" Prinz v. New York State Electric & Gas
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Care Ctr., LLC v Bloch, 39 AD3d 477, 480 [2007], quoting CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; see Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]; Kaufman v Kunis, 14 AD3d 542 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see" Jackson Heights Care Center, LLC v. Bloch
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
A motion for leave to renew must be “based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; see Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]; Kaufman v Kunis, 14 AD3d 542 [2005]).
Gregory Renna
v.
Andrea Gullo, and Chi Kin Leung
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 13, 2005.
19 A.D.3d 472
Cited by 76 opinions  |  Published

[*473] In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated May 10, 2004, which denied their motion for leave to renew that branch of a prior motion of the defendants Chi Kin Leung and Chi K. Leung which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), which had been granted in an order of the same court dated July 14, 2003.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A motion for leave to renew must be “based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination,” and must set forth a “reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Yarde v New York City Tr. Auth., 4 AD3d 352 [2004]; Riccio v DePeralta, 274 AD2d 384 [2000]). While it may be within the court’s discretion to grant renewal upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the original motion (see J.D. Structures v Waldbaum, 282 AD2d 434 [2001]; Cronwall Equities v International Links Dev. Corp., 255 AD2d 354 [1998]), a motion for leave to renew “is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” (see Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328, 329 [1996] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also O’Dell v Caswell, 12 AD3d 492 [2004]; Hart v City of New York, 5 AD3d 438 [2004]; Carota v Wu, 284 AD2d 614 [2001]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew as they failed to offer a reasonable justification as to why the allegedly new facts were not submitted earlier (see Daria v Beacon Capital Co., 299 AD2d 312 [2002]; Malik v Campbell, 289 AD2d 540 [2001]; Doumanis v Conzo, 265 AD2d 296 [1999]). In any event, those facts would not have changed the prior determination. H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.