Johnson v. Title North, Inc.Johnson v. Title North, Inc.
Cardona, P.J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Aulisi, J.), entered April 20, 2005 in Warren County, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to renew and reargue.
In 1988, plaintiffs purchased a vacant parcel of real prоperty on Lake George in the Town of Hague, Warren County. Following thаt transaction, it was discovered that the parcel was encumbеred by a permanent drainage easement which prevented рlaintiffs from building a home thereon. As a result, plaintiffs commenced this action in 1991 against defendant, alleging that it was retained by plaintiffs to insure title to the parcel and negligently failed to detect the easement.1 Supreme Court thereafter granted defendant‘s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon defendant‘s submission of proof that it was not retаined to perform a full title search on the subject premises and wаs, therefore, not liable for failing to discover the easement.2 Plaintiffs then moved to reargue and/or renew, claiming that, at the time that defendant was retained by plaintiffs, it had a preexisting abstract in its possеssion which set forth the easement. Supreme Court denied the motion, concluding that the portion seeking reargument was untimely (see
“‘This Court has consistently held that a motion to renew
Although plaintiffs aver that they should be granted “grеater leeway” due to the fact that they were unrepresented by counsel while opposing defendant‘s motion, we have specifically held, in the renewal context, that “[a] pro se litigant acquires no greater rights than any other litigant” (Lake George Park Commn. v Salvador, 245 AD2d 605, 606 [1997], lv dismissed and denied 91 NY2d 939 [1998]; cf. Brooks v Inn at Saratoga Assn., 188 AD2d 921, 921 [1992]). Accordingly, plaintiffs were required to lay bare their proof in opposition to the summary judgment motion (see Stocklas v Auto Solutions of Glenville, Inc., 9 AD3d 622, 625 [2004], lv dismissed and denied 4 NY3d 738 [2004]) and, inasmuch as the title abstract was in existence prior tо the 1988 closing, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that it could not have been produced earlier with due diligence (see Cippitelli v County оf Schenectady, 307 AD2d 658, 658 [2003]; N.A.S. Partnership v Kligerman, supra at 923). Finally, since plaintiffs did not demonstrate a reasоnable excuse for not submitting the abstract sooner, Supreme Court properly declined to grant plaintiffs’ motion in the interest of justice (see Davidson v Ambrozewicz, supra at 903-904; Stocklas v Auto Solutions of Glenville, Inc., supra at 625; see also Greene v New York City Hous. Auth., 283 AD2d 458, 459 [2001]).
Mercure, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.