Automated Summary
Key Facts
Defendants' motion to reargue and renew a prior decision granting plaintiff's CPLR 3213 motion was denied. The court found the motion untimely (filed nearly two years after the original decision) and lacking new factual support. Defendants were given until March 24, 2026 to submit a counter-appraisal for the property, as their previous arguments and procedural failures (e.g., failing to separate motion items per CPLR 2221(f)) were insufficient. The case involves MF1 2022-FL9 LLC (Plaintiff) vs. Shmuel Haikins, Joseph Rubin, and others (Defendants).
Transaction Type
Guaranty dispute involving a property, likely under a commercial contract.
Issues
- The court denied the motion for reargument and renewal under CPLR 3213 as it was filed nearly two years after the summary judgment decision and without vacating the default, which is a prerequisite for reargument of the underlying motion. The court emphasized that reargument is not a successive opportunity to present new arguments or challenge prior decisions without a valid legal basis.
- The court found the combined motion for leave to reargue and renew violated CPLR 2221(f), which requires separate identification and support for each relief sought. The defendants failed to distinguish between reargument and renewal claims, nor did they provide new evidence or legal grounds for renewal.
- The court rejected the defendants' argument for extending appraisal time under CPLR 2201/2204, noting they provided no evidence (e.g., appraiser affidavit) to justify the delay. The plaintiff’s appraisal report was the only evidence of value, and the defendants’ repeated claims of insufficient time lacked factual or legal support.
Holdings
- Defendants' claim of insufficient appraisal time was dismissed due to lack of evidence showing an appraiser was engaged or required more time. The court noted prior experience with appraisals and defendants' failure to act promptly.
- The court denied the motion to renew as no new facts were presented, citing Queens Unit Venture v Tyson Ct. Owners Corp. (111 AD3d 552, 522 [1st Dept 2013]). The motion lacked an affidavit from an appraiser or evidence of new information.
- The court rejected defendants' reargument arguments as previously addressed and dismissed, emphasizing that reargument is not for successive challenges to prior decisions (citing William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22 [1st Dep't 1992]).
- The court found the motion for reargument untimely under CPLR 2221(e), as it was filed nearly two years after the summary judgment decision. The court reiterated it cannot consider reargument until the default is vacated, which defendants failed to address.
- The motion was granted in part to allow defendants until March 24, 2026 to submit a counter appraisal, but otherwise denied. Failure to meet this deadline would reinstate the judgment.
- The court denied the motion as it combined reargument and renewal without separately identifying and supporting each relief under CPLR 2221(f).
Remedies
Defendants granted until March 24, 2026 to submit a counter appraisal; motion otherwise denied. The court denied all other requested relief including reargument, renewal, and modification of prior orders.
Monetary Damages
35800000.00
Legal Principles
The court applied the burden of proof principle, requiring defendants to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default and provide documentary evidence supporting their need for extended appraisal time. The failure to meet this burden led to the denial of the motion.
Precedent Name
- William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis
- Queens Unit Venture, LLC v Tyson Ct. Owners Corp.
Key Disputed Contract Clauses
Defendants argued the Guaranty was not solely for the payment of money, rendering it ineligible for CPLR 3213 relief. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing defendants failed to demonstrate the Guaranty's ineligibility or provide new evidence to support their position.
Cited Statute
Civil Practice Law and Rules
Judge Name
Andrea Masley
Passage Text
- ORDERED that defendants' motion 007 is granted in part to the extent that they shall have until March 24, 2026 at 5 pm to submit a counter appraisal and otherwise denied.
- Defendants' motion is denied, again, for the following reasons. First, it is an impermissible motion to renew without any new facts proffered such as an affidavit from an appraiser saying they needed more time.1 (Queens Unit Venture, LLC v Tyson Ct. Owners Corp., 111 AD3d 552, 522 [1st Dept 2013].)
- The court has already addressed and rejected defendants' reargument arguments. (NYSCEF 149, November 11, 2025 Decision and Order.) "Reargument is not designed to afford the unsuccessful party successive opportunities to reargue the issues previously decided or to present arguments different from those originally asserted." (William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 [1st Dep't], appeal dismissed 80 NY2d 1005 [1992].)
Damages / Relief Type
Extension of time to submit counter appraisal until March 24, 2026. Original appraisal amount: $35,800,000.