Issue: In New York, when is a motion for reargument appropriate?
|Area of Law:||Litigation & Procedure|
|Keywords:||Motion for reargument; Overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts|
|Cited Cases:||68 A.D.2d 558; 201 A.D.2d 715; 608 N.Y.S.2d 486|
“A motion for reargument . . . is designed to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law. Its purpose is not to serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions decided.” Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 418 N.Y.S.2d 588, 593 (1st Dep’t 1979). Accord, Rodriguez v. Khamis, 201 A.D.2d 715, 608 N.Y.S.2d 486, 487 (2nd Dep’t 1994) (Court properly adhered to its original determination on motion to reargue since it had neither overlooked nor misapplied any controlling principle of law).
If a plaintiff’s motion to argue seeks “to reargue once again the very questions previously decided” that is not the purpose of a motion for reargument. Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 418 N.Y.S.2d 588, 593 (1st Dep’t 1979).