On July 10, 2024, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Jobar Holding Corp. v. Halio, 2024 NY Slip Op. 32650(U), holding that a new decision applying existing law is not a change in the law that can support a motion for renewal, explaining:
While styled as a motion to amend, Plaintiffs motion is actually a motion to reargue the Court’s prior dismissal order based on new case. CPLR 2221(e)(2) provides, in relevant part, that the Court may grant leave to renew if the movant can demonstrate there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination. A new decision that applies existing law is not a change in the law that warrants renewal. Similarly, a new decision that is decided on inapposite facts is not sufficient to warrant renewal.
Contrary to Plaintiffs assertions, 1650 Broadway, does not warrant renewal or leave to amend. 1650 Broadway applied the law as it existed at the time of the Court’s dismissal order and does not concern derivative claims or timeliness concerns. Accordingly, leave to renew and leave to amend are not warranted.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).