Practice point: Although motions to renew should be based on newly discovered facts which could not have been offered on the prior motion, courts have discretion to relax this requirement and grant the motion in the interest of justice.
Practitioners should note that, because the attorney’s affirmation properly explained why plaintiff’s medical expert's affirmation was unsigned and redacted, it was admissible, pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i).
Case: Mattis v. Keen, Zhao, NY Slip Op 06935 (1st Dept. 2008)
The opinion is here.
