| Mazinov v Rella |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09479 [79 AD3d 979] |
| December 21, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Amet Mazinov et al., Respondents, v Yanna Rella, Respondent,and Flagg Court Owners Corp. et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Sanders, Sanders, Block, Woycik, Viener & Grossman, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Martin Block andDouglas H. Sanders of counsel), for plaintiffs-respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Flagg Court OwnersCorp. and Leemar Management Corp. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Schmidt, J.), dated April 16, 2010, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to reargue theplaintiffs' opposition to that branch of their prior motion which was for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint insofar as asserted against them, which had been granted in an order of the same court datedNovember 24, 2009, and, upon reargument, in effect, vacated the order dated November 24, 2009,and denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar asasserted against them.
Ordered that the order dated April 16, 2010, is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise ofdiscretion, with costs, the plaintiffs' motion for leave to reargue is denied, and the order datedNovember 24, 2009, is reinstated.
A motion for leave to reargue "shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked ormisapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of factnot offered on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221 [d] [2]). A motion for leave to reargue "is not designed toprovide an unsuccessful party with successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided, or topresent arguments different from those originally presented" (McGill v Goldman, 261 AD2d593, 594 [1999]; see V. Veeraswamy Realtyv Yenom Corp., 71 AD3d 874 [2010]; Woody's Lbr. Co., Inc. v Jayram Realty Corp., 30 AD3d 590 [2006];Gellert & Rodner v Gem Community Mgt.,Inc., 20 AD3d 388 [2005]; Pryor vCommonwealth Land Tit. Ins. Co., 17 AD3d 434 [2005]; Amato v Lord & Taylor, Inc., 10 AD3d374 [2004]). Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting theplaintiffs' motion for leave to reargue since they failed to show that the Supreme Court overlooked ormisapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied any controlling principle of law and improperlypresented arguments not previously advanced (see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]). Covello, J.P., Florio,Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.