Appellate Division Renewal Motions Based on a Change in the Law
An Appellate Division renewal motion based on a change in the law is a very useful appellate remedy available to practitioners to obtain relief when a change in the law may affect a prior adverse appellate ruling.
August 05, 2021 at 11:00 AM
12 minute read
Most New York appellate practitioners who are confronted with an adverse appellate ruling are undoubtedly aware of the appellate remedies of motions for reargument and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. They, however, may not be familiar with renewal motions at the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This is not surprising because the statewide Practice Rules of the Appellate Division refer only to motions to reargue and for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, and make no reference to renewal motions (22 NYCRR §1250.16(d); see also 22 NYCRR §1250.4). That may be because renewal motions are often based on newly discovered evidence and it is settled that an appellate court's review is limited to the evidence before the motion court. See Khan v. State University of New York Health Science Center at Brooklyn, 271 A.D.2d 656 (2d Dep't 2000). There is, however, a narrow set of circumstances where renewal motions are available in the Appellate Division regarding a matter that is subject to judicial notice. These renewal motions are based on a change in the law, namely where new case law is rendered or a new statute goes into effect, which may be retroactively applied to a pending case. This article explores the scope of Appellate Division renewal motions based on a change in the law.
Understanding the scope of Appellate Division renewal motions based on a change in the law is made somewhat difficult by the fact that the Appellate Division does not state its reason for granting or denying motions, including renewal motions. When it grants a motion for reargument or renewal, the Appellate Division simply recalls and replaces the prior order with a new order. Conversely, when it denies a motion, it simply does so in a summary order. These precedents therefore provide little guidance about the scope of Appellate Division renewal motions based on a change in the law. A better guidance comes from the Appellate Division decisions that review trial level orders that either grant or deny renewal motions based on a change in the law. But before addressing those cases, a brief discussion of the evolution of trial level renewal motions based on a change in the law may be helpful.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Second’ Time’s a Charm? The Second Circuit Reaffirms the Contours of the Special Interest Beneficiary Standing Rule
Attorney Fee Reimbursement for Non-Party Subpoena Recipients Under CPLR 3122(d)
6 minute readHere’s Looking at You, Starwood: A Piercing the Corporate Veil Story?
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Lavish 'Lies' Led to Investors Being Fleeced in Nine-Figure International Crypto Scam
- 2AstraZeneca Files Flurry of Lawsuits to Protect Cancer Treatment Drug
- 3American Airlines Legal Chief Departs for Warner Bros. Discovery
- 4New Montgomery Bar President Aims to Boost Lawyer Referral Service
- 5Deadline Extended for Southeastern Legal Awards
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250