On December 24, 2025, the Second Department issued a decision in Jesan Constr. Group, LLC v. Medford Ber, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op. 07290, holding that a trial court abused its discretion in granting a motion for renewal based on evidence available to the plaintiff before suit was brought, explaining:
A motion for leave to renew shall 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. The new or additional facts presented either must have not been known to the party seeking renewal or may, in the Supreme Court’s discretion, be based on facts known to the party seeking renewal at the time of the original motion. While it may be within the court’s discretion to grant leave to renew upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the prior motion, 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.
Here, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew its opposition to that branch of the defendants’ prior motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the amended complaint. The purported new facts submitted by the plaintiff consisted of a certain document that it had executed prior to commencing this action and, thus, were known to the plaintiff prior to the date it filed its opposition to the defendant’s prior motion. The plaintiff failed to set forth a reasonable justification for failing to present the purported new facts with its opposition. The plaintiff’s explanation for not including the purported new facts with its opposition to the defendant’s prior motion demonstrated that it was using its motion for leave to renew as a second chance to make its evidentiary presentation.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).