Pursuant to CPLR 3126(3), and in light of the plaintiff's history of noncompliance with court orders, the motion court providently exercised its discretion in issuing the order requiring her to appear for a deposition. On her motion to renew, the plaintiff failed to submit new facts, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e][2]), that is., facts that existed but were unknown to her at the time defendants made their motions. Instead, she submitted facts that developed after issuance of the conditional order that decided the prior motions.
Mehler v. Jones, NY Slip Op 02103 (1st Dep't March 26, 2020)
Here is the decision.
