Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)

Citation
Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
Parent Document
Kent v. 534 East 11th Street, 80 A.D.3d 106 (2010)
Jurisdiction
New York (state)
Effective Date
2010-10-28

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text

920 chars
A motion for reargument is addressed to the court’s discretion and is designed to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law (300 W. Realty Co. v City of New York, 99 AD2d 708, 709 [1984], appeal dismissed 63 NY2d 952 [1984]; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1979]). Reargument is not a vehicle permitting a previously unsuccessful party to once again argue the very questions previously decided or to assert new, never previously offered arguments (Foley at 567; William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 [1992], lv dismissed in part 80 NY2d 1005 [1992]). Here, plaintiffs motion for reargument was granted based upon her previously asserted and disregarded argument that defendants had failed to provide necessary discovery, exclusively in their possession, thereby precluding summary judgment.