Case Name: Franz Goyzueta, Appellant, v. Urban Health Plan, Inc., Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1998-12-07
Citations: 256 A.D.2d 307
Docket Number: 
Parties: Franz Goyzueta, Appellant, v Urban Health Plan, Inc., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 256
Pages: 307–308

Head Matter:
Franz Goyzueta, Appellant, v Urban Health Plan, Inc., Respondent.
[681 NYS2d 761]

Opinion:
—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated December 12, 1997, which, upon renewal, vacated a judgment of the same court, entered October 20, 1997, and, inter alia, ordered a trial de novo.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
While it generally is true that a motion to renew must be based on newly-discovered facts, courts have discretion to grant this relief in the interest of justice, although not all of the requirements are met (see, Strong v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Ctr., 240 AD2d 726; Oremland v Miller Minutemen Con str. Corp., 133 AD2d 816). It was proper for the Supreme Court, upon renewal, to vacate the judgment which had been entered in favor of the plaintiff and order a trial de novo. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.