Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Miriam LEYBERMAN, appellant, v. Lev LEYBERMAN, respondent.
In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Marks, J.), dated October 31, 2006, which denied her motion for leave to renew and reargue an order of the same court dated August 28, 2006, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Kahlon, S.M.), dated April 19, 2006.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the petitioner's motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from the denial of reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.
A motion for leave to renew, inter alia, “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221[e][2] ) and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221[e][3] ). A motion for “renewal ‘is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation’ ” (Rubinstein v. Goldman, 225 A.D.2d 328, 328-329, 638 N.Y.S.2d 469, quoting Matter of Beiny, 132 A.D.2d 190, 210, 522 N.Y.S.2d 511). Here, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the petitioner's motion which was for leave to renew since the petitioner failed to present “new facts” that were unavailable to her at the time she filed her written objections and which would change the prior determination (see Williams v. Nassau County Med. Ctr., 37 A.D.3d 594, 829 N.Y.S.2d 645; Giovanni v. Moran, 34 A.D.3d 733, 734, 823 N.Y.S.2d 911).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: September 11, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)