Opinion
15529 Index No. 100643/16 Case No. 2021–00948
03-15-2022
In the Matter of 160 EAST 84TH STREET, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL, Respondent–Respondent, Sherry Sado, Intervenor Respondent–Respondent.
Horing Welikson Rosen & Digrugilliers PC, Williston Park (Richard T. Walsh of counsel), for appellant. Mark F. Palomino, New York (Martin B. Schneider of counsel), for respondent.
Horing Welikson Rosen & Digrugilliers PC, Williston Park (Richard T. Walsh of counsel), for appellant.
Mark F. Palomino, New York (Martin B. Schneider of counsel), for respondent.
Gische, J.P., Kern, Gonza´lez, Shulman, Higgitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered October 20, 2020, which denied petitioner's motion for leave to renew its CPLR article 78 petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly denied petitioner's motion. Under certain circumstances, a court of original jurisdiction may entertain a motion for leave to renew a prior order or judgment based on newly discovered evidence, even after an appellate court has rendered a decision on that order or judgment (see Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. v. City of New York, 280 A.D.2d 374, 377, 720 N.Y.S.2d 487 [1st Dept. 2001] ). But absent any of the circumstances set forth in CPLR 5015, which are inapplicable here, a motion for leave to renew based upon an alleged change in the law must be made prior to the entry of a final judgment, or before the time to appeal has fully expired (see Redeye v. Progressive Ins. Co., 158 A.D.3d 1208, 1208–1209, 71 N.Y.S.3d 233 [4th Dept. 2018] ; Dinallo v. DAL Elec., 60 A.D.3d 620, 621, 874 N.Y.S.2d 246 [2d Dept. 2009] ; Glicksman v. Board of Educ./Cent. School Bd. of Comsewogue Union Free School Dist., 278 A.D.2d 364, 365–366, 717 N.Y.S.2d 373 [2d Dept. 2000] ). CPLR 2221(e) did not change the rule regarding the finality of judgments ( Redeye at 1209, 71 N.Y.S.3d 233 ; Glicksman at 366, 717 N.Y.S.2d 373 ; see also Matter of Huie [Furman], 20 N.Y.2d 568, 572, 285 N.Y.S.2d 610, 232 N.E.2d 642 [1967] ). Since the petition was no longer pending when petitioner made its motion for leave to renew, based on an alleged change in the law, the motion was untimely.
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.