On June 3, 2022, the Fourth Department issued a decision in 2006905 Ontario Inc. v. Goodrich Aerospace Can., Ltd., 2022 NY Slip Op. 03613, holding that a party was not entitled to renew a motion for summary judgment based on deposition testimony it chose not to obtain before it moved for summary judgment, explaining:
Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, Supreme Court properly denied leave to renew. As relevant here, a motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination, and shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion. Here, in support of its motion for leave to renew, plaintiff submitted deposition transcripts containing facts relevant to the prior motion. The only justification proffered by plaintiff for failing to present those facts in support of the prior motion is that depositions had not yet been conducted. As we have previously stated, a motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation. Thus, as the moving party, plaintiff bore the burden of proving that the new evidence it sought to present could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence and would have led to a different result. Here, plaintiff failed to meet that burden because nothing prevented it from conducting discovery, including depositions, prior to moving for partial summary judgment. Thus, plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable justification for not procuring the deposition testimony before moving for [partial] summary judgment.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).