LEE v. GRIMBLAT (2025)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Lea LEE née Eleonore Groën Nitzschke, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Elisabeth Royer GRIMBLAT et al., Defendants–Respondents.

3891

Decided: March 13, 2025

Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Kapnick, Pitt–Burke, Rosado, O'Neill Levy, JJ.

Lea Lee née Eleonore Groën Nitzschke, appellant pro se. Krantz & Berman LLP, New York (Larry H. Krantz of counsel), for Elisabeth Royer Grimblat, Rose Louisa Groen, and Julie Renee Groen, respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered March 6, 2024, which denied plaintiff's motion for leave to renew pursuant to CPLR 2221(e), or, alternatively, to vacate its prior order pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2), (3) and (4), entered June 5, 2023, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff failed to allege either grounds for vacatur or legitimate new facts to warrant renewal of defendants’ motion to dismiss, which was granted by the motion court and affirmed by this Court (see Lee v. Royer Grimblat, 228 A.D.3d 576, 214 N.Y.S.3d 349 [1st Dept. 2024]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network