Narrative Opinion Summary
The case of Gilewicz v. Brylin Hospital involves an appeal from the plaintiff in a medical malpractice lawsuit against multiple defendants, including Brylin Hospital and certain medical professionals. The plaintiff sought to renew and reargue his case after a previous unfavorable ruling by the Supreme Court of Erie County. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, addressed the plaintiff's appeal, specifically focusing on the denial of his motion for leave to renew and reargue. The court ruled that the appeal regarding the denial to reargue was dismissed because such an order is not appealable. Furthermore, the plaintiff's motion for renewal was denied, as he failed to present new evidence that had not been previously considered by the court. The court held that the facts purported to be new were already known to the plaintiff and discussed during oral arguments in prior summary judgment motions. Consequently, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing the requirements under CPLR 2221(e)(2) for a successful motion for renewal. The order was finalized on June 8, 2018, with no costs awarded to either party.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appealability of Denial of Leave to Rearguesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismisses the appeal regarding the denial of leave to reargue because such an appeal is not permissible.
Reasoning: The appeal regarding the denial of leave to reargue was dismissed as no appeal lies from such a denial.
Renewal of Motion under CPLR 2221(e)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for renewal because the plaintiff failed to introduce new facts that were not previously presented.
Reasoning: The plaintiff's motion for renewal was denied because he did not provide new facts that had not been previously presented, which would warrant a change in the court's prior determination.
Requirement for New Evidence in Renewal Motionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized the necessity for presenting new evidence to justify a change in the prior court's determination.
Reasoning: The ruling emphasizes the necessity for a party seeking renewal to demonstrate the existence of new evidence that could alter the outcome of the case, as outlined under CPLR 2221(e)(2).