The motion court correctly treated appellant's motion as one for reargument, since no new facts were set forth that could not have been presented on the initial motion, and, in any event, no explanation was offered for not having presented the facts previously. Although the court stated that it was denying the motion, it effectively granted the motion by addressing the merits, correctly holding that appellant's arguments were precluded by collateral estoppel, since they could...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.