SAINTVILUS v. David T. Saintvilus, appellant. (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant David T. Saintvilus appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Caroline Piela Cohen, J.), dated February 13, 2025.  The order denied the motion of that defendant for leave to renew that branch of his prior motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated June 6, 2024.

ORDERED that the order dated February 13, 2025, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On August 31, 2019, the plaintiffs, who were passengers in a vehicle operated by the defendant David T. Saintvilus (hereinafter the defendant), allegedly were injured when the defendant's vehicle collided with a vehicle operated by the defendant Veronica E. Hall at an intersection in Brooklyn.  In November 2022, the plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant and Hall to recover damages for personal injuries.  Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability against Hall and pursuant to CPLR 3211(b) to dismiss Hall's affirmative defenses alleging culpable conduct, comparative negligence, and failure to wear a seatbelt.  The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and Hall's cross-claims asserted against him.  In an order dated June 6, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion.  In a separate order also dated June 6, 2024, the court granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing Hall's cross-claims asserted against him and denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

In October 2024, the defendant moved for leave to renew that branch of his prior motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, contending, inter alia, that there was no viable cause of action against him in light of the Supreme Court's June 6, 2024 orders.  In an order dated February 13, 2025, the court denied the defendant's motion.  The defendant appeals.

A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221[e][2] ).  Here, in support of his motion, the defendant failed to proffer new facts or demonstrate a change in the law that would change the prior determination (see Troxler v Hampton, 246 AD3d 991;  JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Valencia, 245 AD3d 917).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for leave to renew that branch of his prior motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

CONNOLLY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WAN and QUIRK, JJ., concur.