This entry was posted in New Jersey by Michael A. If you would like further information please write to Mike Bono. Thanks to Christina Emerson for her contribution to this post. This case also serves as a reminder that, no matter how a motion is “packaged,” the court will look to the substance of the requests for relief in determining whether the motion has been correctly filed. OFCCP Refresh and Reset: What to Watch for in 2022. This case is a stark reminder that time limitations, especially on motions for reconsideration and appeals, are taken very seriously by the courts. Reporting Requirements Motion for Reconsideration New York + Follow. A subpoena duces tecum directed to a public body or agency does not require approval of a court. As a result, the motion for relief from judgment and the motion for reconsideration were both properly denied. Such records shall be made available for inspection and copying during the ordinary business hours of the division, by appointment, and in accordance with section 2305(c) of the Civil Practice Law and Rules of New York State. Therefore, it was an improperly filed motion for reconsideration.
SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION NEW YORK TRIAL
The court stated that the trial judge correctly recognized that plaintiff’s second motion, although couched as a motion for relief from judgment, sought the same relief as the first motion. On review, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion for relief from judgment and the motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The trial court again denied that motion, ruling that it was essentially one for reconsideration, filed untimely and without merit. Two months later, plaintiff again moved to reinstate the complaint, citing lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff’s trial attorney. Again, plaintiff did not appeal or file a timely motion for reconsideration. Four months later, plaintiff filed a motion to reinstate the complaint. Plaintiff did not appeal that decision or file a motion for reconsideration. Although plaintiff’s trial attorney was aware of the issue as of the first trial call, he did not inform the court of the issue or request additional time to obtain a new expert report until the sixth trial call - approximately one year after discovery in the matter had ended.Īfter the plaintiff’s trial attorney acknowledged that the plaintiff could not prove the case without an expert, the trial judge dismissed the matter. The plaintiff’s trial attorney was unable to locate an expert witness who had been named during discovery, and who was needed to testify on plaintiff’s behalf to overcome the “verbal threshold” needed to avoid dismissal. The plaintiff’s attorneys in the recent Appellate Division decision in Cafuli v. However, it is important to remember that once such a motion has been decided, any subsequent motion seeking identical relief, no matter how it is presented, may be treated by the court as a motion for reconsideration and subject to specific standards. The court also denied that branch of plaintiff’s motion seeking to amend the complaint, reasoning that “ere, insofar as the amended complaint annexed to the moving papers fails to clearly show the changes or additions made to the pleadings in compliance with CPLR 3025(b) it is procedurally defective.New Jersey’s Rules of Court allow parties to seek relief from judgments and orders based upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.
The purpose of a motion to reargue is not to serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided. Further, upon consideration of the record as a whole, the court properly decided that a summary determination as to plaintiff’s causes of action for racial discrimination, gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and disparate treatment was appropriate. Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions fail to establish a prima facie case for discrimination. Specifically, plaintiff asserts, in her complaint, in opposition to the City’s motion for summary judgment, and in support of the instant motion seeking reargument, a general culture of gender and racial discrimination within NYPD HWY but fails to provide specific instances where she was discriminated against on the basis of her race or gender. This court’s Decemdecision did not overlook or misapprehend any matters of fact or law that would warrant leave to reargue. 30, 2021), the court denied plaintiff’s motion to reargue the court’s prior decision granting summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff’s discrimination and hostile work environment claims, as well as to amend the complaint.Īfter review of the papers submitted and considered herein, plaintiff’s motion to reargue is denied.