Issue: When can the ‘Dual Purpose’ doctrine be used as a matter of law?
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Dual Purpose doctrine; Matter of law |
| Jurisdiction: | New York |
| Cited Cases: | 306 N.Y.S.2d 947; 349 N.Y.S.2d 1; 249 A.D.2d 988; 588 N.Y.S.2d 8; 316 N.E.2d 718; 498 N.Y.S.2d 583; 263 A.D.2d 953; 554 N.Y.S.2d 367; 499 N.Y.S.2d 758; 672 N.Y.S.2d 201; 11 A.D.2d 586; 39 A.D.2d 473; 383 N.Y.S.2d 943; 47 N.Y.2d 297; 43 A.D.2d 528; 34 N.Y.2d 896; 51 A.D. 872; 182 A.D.2d 22; 695 N.Y.S.2d 443; 117 A.D.2d 868; 586 N.Y.S.2d 258; 336 N.Y.S.2d 940; 118 A.D.2d 536; 160 A.D.2d 1163; 200 N.Y.S.2d 575; 153 A.D.2d 329; 25 N.Y.2d 467; 380 N.Y.S.2d 146; 418 N.Y.S.2d 300 |
| Cited Statutes: | N.Y. C.P.L.R. 2221(d); |
| Date: | 05/01/2001 |
Under C.P.L.R. 2221, the trial court has authority to grant a motion for leave to reargue “based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion.” N.Y. C.P.L.R. 2221(d). Parties are expressly prohibited from including in the motion for leave to reargue “any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion.” Id. The motion for leave to reargue “is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.” William P. Pahl Equip. v. Kassis, 182 A.D.2d 22, 588 N.Y.S.2d 8, 11 (1st Dep’t 1992) (affirming the trial court’s initial dismissal, reasoning that it should not have granted reargument based on the plaintiffs’ “facile and completely unsupported misapplication of the law” and their claim “that the court overlooked the authorities they cited,” especially given that they made the same argument earlier). The parties should presume that the judge considered all arguments made and evidence presented in reaching a determination. It is up to the movant to establish otherwise.
The appellate divisions have made clear that the procedural mechanism of leave to reargue is neither a vehicle for the parties to raise new questions or arguments, Santoro v. Schreiber, 263 A.D.2d 953, 695 N.Y.S.2d 443, 445 (4th Dep’t 1999), nor an opportunity to make the same arguments again, William P. Pahl Equip., 588 N.Y.S.2d at 11. “Reargument is not designed to afford the unsuccessful party successive opportunities to reargue […]