Reargument Denied But Additional Time To Submit Appraisal Granted

Posted: April 10, 2026 / Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner / Categories Reargument, Default Judgment, Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint

Reargument Denied But Additional Time To Submit Appraisal Granted

On March 3, 2026, Justice Andrea Masley generally denied defendants’ motion to reargue a prior grant of summary judgment, but granted them a final extension to file an appraisal challenging the amount awarded plaintiff. The case is MF1 2022-FL9 LLC v. Haikins, Index No. 654647/2023.

This matter previously appeared in this space on November 2, 2025 (https://www.schlamstone.com/blogs/commercial/index?search=1&query=654647%2F2023), where we reported on Justice Masley’s July 9, 2025 decision declining to vacate the Court’s grant of summary judgment in lieu of complaint on default or to stay entry of the $46,136,700.55 judgment that had been entered. By order dated November 26, 2025, the Court vacated the judgment and allowed defendants to submit an appraisal by December 31, 2025 challenging its amount. “Instead, defendants filed this motion on December 31, 2025. As a result, plaintiff’s appraisal, in the amount of $35,800,000, is the only evidence of value before the Court.” Slip op., pp. 2-3.

Defendants’ motion to reargue was denied:

First, it is an impermissible motion to renew without any new facts proffered such as an affidavit from an appraiser saying they needed more time. . .

If it is a motion to reargue, then defendants’ motion is untimely having been filed nearly two years after the court decided plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.. . . [and] the Court cannot consider reargument of the underlying summary judgment motion until defendants’ default is vacated. Defendants have failed

to so move. . . .

The court has already addressed and rejected defendants’ reargument

arguments. (NYSCEF 149, November 11, 2025, Decision and Order.) “Reargument is not designed to afford the unsuccessful party successive opportunities to reargue the issues previously decided or to present arguments different from those originally asserted.” . . ..

As a procedural matter, defendants’ motion is denied as CPLR 2221(f) states “[a] combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew shall identify separately and support separately each item of relief sought.” However, defendants have failed to do so.

Slip op., pp. 2-3 (citations omitted.)

Defendants had submitted only an attorney affirmation stating that “Defendants’ appraiser visited the Property but requires additional time to complete its appraisal”, rather than a statement from the appraiser explaining why more time was needed and the Court found this insufficient as stated in the language quoted above. Id., p. 2 & fn.1. However, Justice Masley gave defendants a final chance to submit the appraisal:

While this court finds defendants’ delay tactics improper and potentially contemptuous, defendants may have 3 weeks from the date of this order to obtain an appraisal, which should take but a few days. Unless defendants submit a counter appraisal by 5 pm on March 24, 2026, the court will reinstate the judgment.

Slip op., p. 4.

Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning reargument, summary judgment or default judgments.