Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend a Judgment

What Is a Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend a Judgment?

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Reargument

"A motion for reargument, addressed to the discretion of the court, is designed to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principal of law.” (See Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Dinerman (2017) N.Y. Slip Op. 31958, 2; Foley v Roche (1979) 68 AD2d 558, 567.)

“Its purpose is not to serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided." (See id.)

“A motion for leave to reargue shall be identified specifically as such [and] shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matter of fact not offered on the prior motion...." (See Mak v. Silverstein Props., Inc. (2010) N.Y. Slip Op. 33866, 7; Pro Brokerage, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co. (1984) 99 A.D.2d 971; see also, De Blasio v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. (1984) 124 Misc.2d 726; Flynn v. Town of North Hempstead (1982) 114 Misc.2d 12552 97 A.D.2d 430.)

Rules for Filing a Motion for Reargument

“A motion for leave to renew or to reargue a prior motion, for leave to appeal from, or to stay, vacate or modify, an order shall be made, on notice, to the judge who signed the order, unless he or she is for any reason unable to hear it, except that:

if the order was made upon a default such motion may be made, on notice, to any judge of the court; and
if the order was made without notice such motion may be made, without notice, to the judge who signed it, or, on notice, to any other judge of the court.”

(See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 2221(a).)

“A combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew shall identify separately and support separately each item of relief sought. The court, in determining a combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew, shall decide each part of the motion as if it were separately made. If a motion for leave to reargue or leave to renew is granted, the court may adhere to the determination on the original motion or may alter that determination.” (See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 2221(f).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Reargument

“The Court has discretion to grant a motion to reargue upon a showing that it, overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law." (Foley v. Roche (1979) 68 A.D. 2d 558, 418 N.Y.S. 2d 588; Choephel v. A/R Retail, LLC (2019) N.Y. Slip Op. 32236, 2.)

"Every court retains a continuing jurisdiction generally to reconsider any prior intermediate determination it has made." (See D'Alessandro v. Carro (2013) N.Y. Slip Op. 31715, 7; Aridas v Caserta (1977) 41 NY2d 1059, 1061.)

“This is certainly true with respect to a motion for renewal and/or reargument.” (See id.)

"[A] motion court's decision whether to grant or deny a motion for reargument is firmly within its discretion and should only be disturbed where such discretion has been abused." (See id.)

“The Court's determination and exercise of its discretion will not be interfered with unless it is so manifestly wrong as to indicate [an] abuse of power.” (See In re Cmty. Bank (2023) N.Y. Slip Op. 50550.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Reargument

It is well settled that “reargument is not intended to afford an unsuccessful party successive opportunities to argue issues previously decided, or to present arguments different from those originally asserted.” (See Choephel v. A/R Retail, LLC (2019) N.Y. Slip Op. 32236, 2.)

As such, it is also well settled that “the movant cannot use a motion to reargue as a successive opportunity to merely restate previously unsuccessful arguments.” (See id.)

Documents for Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend a Judgment in New York

Sort By

Viznitz Institutions, Inc. D/B/A Bais Yisroel School v. New York State Education Department, Betty A. Rosa in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Education Department document preview

NOTICE OF APPEAL (Motion #1) - Notice of Appeal of April 11, 2024 Decision…

17 pages

FILED: ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 05/10/2024 04:11 PM INDEX NO. 908174-23 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/10/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ALBANY --------------------------------------------------------------------X VIZNITZ INSTITUTIONS, INC. d/b/a BAIS YISROEL SCHOOL, …

Case Name Viznitz Institutions, Inc. D/B/A Bais Yisroel School v. New York State Edu…