Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas, etc., respondent, v Favio Taveras, etc., et al., defendants, Freddy Duran, appellant.

Holding The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion for leave to renew because the defendant improperly asserted a new legal argument rather than relying on new facts or a change in law. Additionally, the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as a complaint, to prove that a prior action to foreclose the same mortgage was pending.

The court’s words

A motion for leave to renew shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination

2026 NY Slip Op 06096, at the official text

the defendant improperly asserted a legal argument on his motion to renew different from the legal theory on which his prior cross-motion was based

2026 NY Slip Op 06096, at the official text

the defendant failed to sufficiently prove that an action to foreclose the same mortgage was pending at the time of commencement of this action

2026 NY Slip Op 06096, at the official text