Matter of O'Gorman v. O'Gorman
In the Matter of Sarah OâGorman, Respondent, v. John OâGorman, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.); In the Matter of John OâGorman, Appellant, v. Sarah OâGorman, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
In related child support proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Woods, J.), entered March 3, 2014, which denied his motion for leave to renew his objections to so much of an order of the same court (Krahulik, S.M.), dated August 1, 2013, as granted the motherâs petition for an upward modification of his child support obligation, which were denied in an order entered October 29, 2013.
Ordered that the order entered March 3, 2014, is affirmed, with costs.
A motion for leave to renew, inter alia, âshall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determinationâ (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]) and âshall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motionâ (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). A motion for ârenewal âis not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentationâ â (Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328, 328-329 [1996], quoting Matter of Weinberg, 132 AD2d 190, 210 [1987]). Here, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying *745 the fatherâs motion for leave to renew, since the father failed to present ânew factsâ that were unavailable to him at the time of the hearing before the Support Magistrate or when he filed his written objections and, in any event, the ânew factsâ would not have changed the prior determination (see Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 37 AD3d 594 [2007]; Giovanni v Moran, 34 AD3d 733, 734 [2006]).