Concerning filing motions to reargue and motions to renew

In this decisions the Appellate Division explains that "[n]o appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (see Budin v Davis, 172 AD3d 1676, 1679 [2019]) and, therefore, the only issue before it in its considering this action was the propriety of the Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's motion to renew. 

In this regard, said the court, "[a] motion to renew must be based on new facts not previously offered that would change the prior determination and must contain a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the original motion."

A motion to renew, opined the Appellate Division, 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" (Walden v Varricchio, 195 AD3d 1111, 1114 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Williams v Annucci, 175 AD3d 1677, 1679 [2019]). 

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that there no abuse of that discretion on the part of the lower court.

Click HEREto access the Appellate Division's decision.

The future disease burden of pandemic Covid-19 for individuals, communities, and society

The Environmental Claims Journal, on December 16, 2021, posted Dr. Robert A. Michaels' article entitled The future disease burden of pandemic Covid-19 for individuals, communities, and society. Click HEREto access the Journal's post on the Internet.

This article is also available for download as a pre-print at no charge on ResearchGate by clicking HERE.

Below is the abstract of Dr. Michaels' article. 

Abstract

Pandemic Covid-19 has exposed tension between personal choice and public health policy. Vaccination has damped pandemic inertia in the U.S., but emergence of highly infectious variants such as delta and omicron has increased infection of fully vaccinated people. This worrisome trend justifies vaccine booster eligibility and access for all vaccinated people in a timeframe responding to waning protection.

In restricting booster eligibility, US FDA and CDC statements indicate failure to consider that SARS-CoV-2 might be persistent, meaning that it might remain dormant in immune-privileged “refugia” such as the central nervous system of previously infected people, even if their Covid-19 symptoms had been mild or non-existent. Opportunistic re-activation of dormant viruses can cause severe illness, as in childhood chickenpox producing adult shingles decades later.

External re-infection is unnecessary. Consistent with the “precautionary principle,” the overriding FDA and CDC public health priority should be to prevent as many SARS-CoV-2 infections as possible, not tolerate them, assuming optimistically that they will not impose major public health and associated economic burdens in the future.

We naturally have focused upon our tragic past losses. We also must focus upon the future, learning from Covid-19 to manage pro-actively the inevitable next pandemic.

Determining eligibility for accidental disability retirement benefits

A risk inherent in the job duties of the position and the result of the performance of routine employment duties, and which did not involve an unexpected event or hidden danger is not an accident for the purposes of eligibility of Accidental Disability Retirement within the meaning of New York State's Retirement and Social Security Law.

Click HEREto access the Appellate Division's decision.

The Rooker–Feldman Doctrine

The Rooker–Feldman Doctrine as announced by the United States Supreme Court in two cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, explains that federal courts other than the Supreme Court of the United States should not sit in direct review of state court decisions unless Congress has specifically authorized such relief and in the absence of such congressional authorization a state court appellant must find a state court remedy or seek to obtain relief from the United States Supreme Court.

Concerning filing motions to reargue and motions to renew

 

In this decisions the Appellate Division explains that "[n]o appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (see Budin v Davis, 172 AD3d 1676, 1679 [2019]) and, therefore, the only issue before it in its considering this action was the propriety of the Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's motion to renew. 

In this regard, said the court, "[a] motion to renew must be based on new facts not previously offered that would change the prior determination and must contain a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the original motion."

A motion to renew, opined the Appellate Division, 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" (Walden v Varricchio, 195 AD3d 1111, 1114 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Williams v Annucci, 175 AD3d 1677, 1679 [2019]). 

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that there no abuse of that discretion on the part of the lower court.

Click HEREto access the Appellate Division's decision.