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.
UTILITY AUDIT GROUP, respondent-appellant, et al., plaintiff, v. APPLE MAC & R CORP., a/k/a Apple Mac & R Inc., d/b/a MacMenamin's Pub, et al., appellants-respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, to recover on an account stated, and to recover in quantum meruit for services rendered, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated August 14, 2007, as denied their motion for leave to renew their opposition to that branch of the motion of the plaintiff Utility Audit Group which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action alleging breach of contract, which had been determined in an order dated August 30, 2005, and the plaintiff Utility Audit Group cross-appeals from the same order.
ORDERED that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements; and it further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 2221(e) for leave to renew their opposition to that branch of UAG's motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action alleging breach of contract. The defendants did not satisfy the requirements of CPLR 2221(e), which provide, among other things, that a motion for leave to renew “shall be based on new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (see Williams v. Nassau County Med. Ctr., 37 A.D.3d 594, 829 N.Y.S.2d 645).
The cross appeal must be dismissed as abandoned (see Bibas v. Bibas, 58 A.D.3d 586, 871 N.Y.S.2d 648), as the respondent-appellant does not seek reversal of any portion of the order in its brief.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: February 24, 2009
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)