In G* v. H* G* Irrevocable Living Trust, the plaintiff, NG, sought to reform a deed. But after his case was dismissed by the Kings County Supreme Court, G* attempted to revive his case by filing a motion for leave to reargue and renew his opposition. Those requests were also denied.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the portion of the appeal which sought reargument outright, citing the rule that no appeal lies from an order denying reargument.
As for the motion to renew, the AD2 affirmed the denial. Under CPLR 2221(e), a motion to renew must introduce new facts not previously presented that would likely alter the outcome, and must also explain why those facts weren’t submitted earlier. G* failed on both counts: he offered no new material facts and provided no justification for their prior omission. The court emphasized that renewal is not a “second chance” for litigants who failed to exercise due diligence the first time around.
This decision reinforces the judiciary’s expectation that litigants present their strongest case at the outset and that procedural mechanisms like renewal are not to be misused as fallback strategies. It also underscores the importance of adhering strictly to CPLR standards when seeking to revisit a prior ruling.
Looks like his attempt to reform, was denied in form ...
# # #
DECISION