CPLR 2221 (e) states that motion for leave to renew "shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion...shall contain reasonable justification ". The judge in the court hearting states it's not true; he states that a motion to renew should be based on new facts not available to the moving parties prior to the motion. The judge will probably rule based on his understanding of the law. Which one is the right law, "not offered" or "not available"?
Lawsuit / Dispute Attorney
Read Siegel's New York Practice or go to McKinney's NY States and read the case annotations to CPLR 2221. Maybe the judge knows what he is talking about.
Criminal Defense Attorney
Case law says a motion to renew is not a do over. If you are relying on facts not argued the first time you need to show you could not have gotten the information by using due diligence.
I am a former federal and State prosecutor and have been doing criminal defense work for over 16 years. I was named to the Super Lawyers list as one of the top attorneys in New York for 2012 and 2013. No more than 5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by Super Lawyers. Martindale-Hubbell has given me its highest rating - AV Preeminent - in the areas of Criminal Law, Personal Injury, and Litigation. According to Martindale-Hubbell”AV Preeminent is a significant rating accomplishment - a testament to the fact that a lawyer's peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence." Fewer than 8% of attorneys achieve an AV Preeminent rating. I also have the highest ranking – “superb” – on Avvo. The above answer, and any follow up comments or emails is for informational purposes only and not meant as legal advice.