Matter of O'Gorman v O'Gorman
2014 NY Slip Op 07667 [122 AD3d 744]
November 12, 2014
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 31, 2014


[*1]
 In the Matter of Sarah O'Gorman,Respondent,
v
John O'Gorman, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter ofJohn O'Gorman, Appellant, v Sarah O'Gorman, Respondent. (Proceeding No.2.)

Kamaras & Scibetta, PLLC, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Philip L. Kamaras of counsel), forappellant.

Annette G. Hasapidis, South Salem, N.Y., for respondent.

In related child support proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the fatherappeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Woods, J.), entered March 3,2014, which denied his motion for leave to renew his objections to so much of an orderof the same court (Krahulik, S.M.), dated August 1, 2013, as granted the mother'spetition for an upward modification of his child support obligation, which were denied inan order entered October 29, 2013.

Ordered that the order entered March 3, 2014, is affirmed, with costs.

A motion for leave to renew, inter alia, "shall be based upon new facts not offered onthe prior motion that would change the prior determination" (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]) and"shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the priormotion" (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). A motion for "renewal 'is not a second chance freely givento parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factualpresentation' " (Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328, 328-329 [1996],quoting Matter of Weinberg, 132 AD2d 190, 210 [1987]). Here, the Family Courtprovidently exercised its discretion in denying the father's motion for leave to renew,since the father failed to present "new facts" that were unavailable to him at the time ofthe hearing before the Support Magistrate or when he filed his written objections and, inany event, the "new facts" would not have changed the prior determination (see Williams v Nassau CountyMed. Ctr., 37 AD3d 594 [2007]; Giovanni v Moran, 34 AD3d 733, 734 [2006]). Chambers,J.P., Sgroi, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.