Fortun Vantage Ins., LLC v. Fortun
2025 NY Slip Op 31948(U)
| N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. | 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (Fortun Vantage Insurance, LLC and Vantage Insurance Partners, Inc.) sued Defendants (Hector D. Fortun and Fortun Holdings, LLC) alleging wrongful interference by soliciting former clients and employees.
- Plaintiffs initially obtained a TRO with a $100,000 bond, then a preliminary injunction requiring a $1,250,000 bond, which was posted as ordered.
- Plaintiffs later moved to renew the issue of the bond requirement, arguing that under provisions in their agreements, defendants had waived any entitlement to a bond for equitable relief.
- Plaintiffs had the relevant contracts in their possession from the outset and did not raise the waiver provisions during two hearings where the bond was set and posted.
- The court considered whether to allow renewal of the bond requirement issue based on arguments of new facts and interests of justice, despite Plaintiffs’ prior opportunities to raise them.
- The motion to renew was ultimately denied, as the court found Plaintiffs lacked reasonable justification for not making the arguments earlier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs can renew argument to eliminate the bond requirement | MIPA and Employment Agreement contained waivers of the bond; new facts justify renewal | Plaintiffs had every opportunity to argue this and failed; renewal inappropriate | Denied – no reasonable justification for failure to present earlier |
| Whether requiring bond is unjust in light of supposed waiver | Imposing the bond is a hardship and unnecessary under the contracts | Plaintiffs agreed or acquiesced to bond; waiver provision omitted in argument | Denied – Plaintiffs failed to argue waiver despite ample opportunity |
| Applicability of cited renewal cases to these facts | Cases justify renewal where there was no opportunity to argue or when facts changed | Distinguished those cases – Plaintiffs here had full opportunity | Denied – Different facts; not persuasive authority in this context |
| Opportunity to present arguments re: bond requirement | No opportunity for written opposition; now wish to present | Plaintiffs argued bond size previously, never raised waiver; not new | Denied – Court provided multiple venues to raise, Plaintiffs did not |
Key Cases Cited
- Mejia v. Nanni, 763 N.Y.S.2d 611 (1st Dep’t 2003) (renewal motions typically require newly discovered facts; court has discretion to relax standard)
- Queens Unit Venture, LLC v. Tyson Ct. Owners Corp., 975 N.Y.S.2d 57 (1st Dep’t 2013) ("renewal is not a second chance for parties lacking diligence")
- 794 Lexington Realty LLC v. 794 Lexington Inc., 176 N.Y.S.3d 475 (N.Y. Cnty. Sup. Ct. 2022) (renewal granted due to new counsel and evidence affecting jurisdiction)
- Lopez v. Kelly St. Realty, Inc., 965 N.Y.S.2d 111 (1st Dep’t 2013) (renewal proper when prior party conduct impeded fair presentation of facts)