| 515 Ave. I Corp. v 515 Ave. I Tenants Corp. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07658 [44 AD3d 707] |
| October 9, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| 515 Avenue I Corp., Appellant, v 515 Avenue I TenantsCorp. et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Feder, Kaszovitz, Isaacson, Weber, Skala, Bass & Rhine, LLP, New York, N.Y. (EzioScaldaferri of counsel), for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the plaintiff to be the holder of certainunsold shares of the defendant 515 Avenue I Tenants Corp., with all of the rights emanatingtherefrom, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated January 20, 2006, as denied that branch of its motionwhich was for leave to renew its prior motion for a preliminary injunction, which had beendenied in an order dated June 7, 2005, on the ground that there had been a change in the law.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Pursuant to CPLR 2221 (e) (2), (3), a motion for leave to renew must be "based upon newfacts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shalldemonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination,"and the motion papers must contain a "reasonable justification for the failure to present such factson the prior motion."
Although the Court of Appeals' reversal of the Appellate Division, First JudicialDepartment's decision in Kralik v 239 E.79th St. Owners Corp. (5 NY3d 54, 59 [2005]), changed the general law relevant to theplaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, it would not change the original determination ofthat motion in this action. The controlling documents failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff hadbeen designated a holder of unsold shares, with all of the rights emanating [*2]therefrom. Thus, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood ofsuccess on the merits (see CPLR 6301; Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860[1990]; W.T. Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496 [1981]; Price Paper & Twine Co. vMiller, 182 AD2d 748 [1992]), and the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of itsmotion which was for leave to renew. Schmidt, J.P., Rivera, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.