Holtz v. Blackstone Bldrs. Holding Co., LLC

Holtz, 2025 NY Slip Op 01140 (Appellate Division Third Department 2025) · Appellate Division, Third Department · February 27, 2025 · No. CV-23-1758

Summary

This Appellate Division, Third Department decision reviews the denial of a defendant's motion for leave to renew a prior trial court decision in a quiet title action. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling, holding that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable justification for not presenting newly discovered deed and will documents during the original bench trial. Although the defendant was a successor in interest to a defaulting party, she could not demonstrate due diligence regarding the newly proffered evidence. Consequently, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying the renewal motion.

Court
Appellate Division, Third Department
Writing for the Court
Clark, J.P.; Reynolds Fitzgerald; Ceresia; McShan; Powers
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
February 27, 2025
Docket number
CV-23-1758
Procedural posture
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Greene County, entered August 11, 2023, denying defendant's motion to renew a prior judgment.
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion standard for renewal motions under CPLR 2221(e)(3).
Precedential value
published
Parties
Sahar Cohen Gershon v. Kathleen I. Holtz
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

quiet titlereal estatecivil procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

real estatecivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the defendant provided a reasonable justification for failing to present the newly discovered 1824 deed and 1865 will at trial, thereby warranting renewal of the Supreme Court’s denial.

Holdings

  1. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court’s denial because the defendant failed to provide a reasonable justification; a renewal motion is not a second chance and will be disturbed only on an abuse‑of‑discretion basis.

Key quotations

A renewal motion is not a second chance to remedy inadequacies that occurred in failing to exercise due diligence in the first instance, and the denial of a motion to renew will be disturbed only where it constituted an abuse of the trial court's discretion.
Although courts did, at one time, ignore [such] requirement and, in the exercise of discretion, grant motions to renew in the interest of justice, reasonable justification is now required by statute.

Factual background

Holtz sued to quiet title to a parcel in Catskill, Greene County. A default judgment was entered against Robb Blau, who later sold the property to Hidden River, LLC, owned solely by Sahar Cohen Gershon. Blau sought to vacate the judgment; the Supreme Court affirmed Holtz's ownership. Gershon intervened and moved to renew the judgment, relying on a 1824 deed and a 1865 will not presented at trial. The court found no reasonable justification for the late presentation of these documents.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed a quiet‑title action in 2018. A default judgment was entered against Robb Blau. After a bench trial in August 2021, Blau sold the property to Hidden River, LLC (sole member Sahar Cohen Gershon). Blau moved to vacate the default judgment; the Supreme Court denied the motion and held plaintiff the lawful owner. Defendant intervened and moved to renew the Supreme Court's decision, presenting two previously undisclosed documents. The Supreme Court denied the renewal for lack of reasonable justification. The present appeal challenges that denial.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…