The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 009) 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 171, 172, 174, 175 were read on this motion for REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing documents, and for the reasons stated hereinbelow, plaintiffs’ motion, pursuant to CPLR 2221, to renew and reargue is denied. In this now long-running action, the reader’s familiarity with which the Court presumes, plaintiffs now move, pursuant to CPLR 2221(d) and (e), to reargue and renew that part of this Court’s December 5, 2023 Decision and Order (the “Prior Decision and Order”) that denied plaintiffs’ motion to hold defendants in contempt. NYSCEF Doc. No. 156. In the Prior Decision and Order, this Court found that Plaintiffs had not clearly demonstrated that defendants had willfully and sufficiently disobeyed a court order. Plaintiffs argue that “the Court improperly disregarded evidence in the record showing that Defendants both violated the Court’s order not in an honest mistake (civil contempt) and violated the Court’s order willfully (criminal contempt).” NYSCEF Doc. No. 158. Specifically, plaintiffs point to the elements of contempt: a court order was in effect; reasonable certainty that the order was disobeyed; the party to be held in contempt had knowledge of the order; and the rights of a party were prejudiced. McCormick v. Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583 (1983). In opposition, defendants argue, as an initial matter, that plaintiffs’ motion is “procedurally defective as they fail to attach a copy of the decision and order denying the underlying motion.” NYSCEF Doc. No. 164. Defendants also argue that “the motion presents nothing new, and nothing to show that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the applicable law or facts,” and that plaintiffs instead reiterate their prior argument: “that the final version of the board minutes from June 27, 2022 differed from the draft minutes they already had in their possession, and insist that this is somehow demonstrative of fraud or another bad act.” In addition, plaintiffs attempt to present new evidence in the form of an unsigned, un-notarized affidavit from former defendant, now plaintiff, Vera Vasquez (the “Affidavit”). NYSCEF Doc. No. 160. In opposition, defendants argue that the Affidavit, even if it were admissible, would not meet the proper ground for renewal, as “new” evidence submitted must have been unknown to the party seeking renewal and not brought to the court’s attention. In reply, plaintiffs raise some new arguments, repeat some arguments raised in the previous motion, and attempt to file a now-signed-and-notarized version of the Affidavit. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 171, 172. Discussion It is well-settled that: A motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and may be granted only upon a showing ‘that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or the law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision.’” Reargument is not designed to afford the unsuccessful party successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided or to present arguments different from those originally asserted. A motion to renew under CPLR 2221, on the other hand, is intended to draw the court’s attention to new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time of the original motion, were unknown to the party seeking renewal and therefore not brought to the court’s attention. William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v. Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 (1st Dept 1992) (internal citations omitted). As an initial matter, defendants’ argument that plaintiffs’ motion is procedurally defective for failing to attach a copy of the Prior Decision and Order is incorrect. Here, the movants consented to e-filing (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1) and CPLR 2214(c) is clear that, when furnishing papers to the court in “an e-filed action, a party that files papers in connection with a motion need not include copies of papers that were filed previously electronically with the court, but may make reference to them, giving the docket numbers on the e-filing system.” This is exactly as pro se plaintiffs have done. Secondly, although plaintiffs did mistakenly file an unsigned, unnotarized affidavit from Vera Vazquez, because they fixed it promptly upon being made aware of the mistake, and as no party was substantially prejudiced, the Court will consider the notarized Affidavit. CPLR 2001 (“At any stage of an action…the court may permit a mistake…to be corrected, upon such terms as may be just, or, if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced”) However, this Court must still deny plaintiffs’ motion. A careful review of plaintiffs’ filings and legal arguments simply does not show that the Court overlooked or misapprehended any matters of fact or law. The essence of plaintiffs’ arguments remains unchanged from their initial presentation, and the additional information provided does not materially affect the Prior Decision and Order. Plaintiffs in their papers mischaracterize what the Court said during the December 1, 2023 oral argument. The Court did not say that “…even if we had…a factual hearing, that [the Court] would hold anyone on defendants’ side in contempt.’” The Court said that “I don’t see, even if we had a hearing, a factual hearing, that I would hold anyone on defendants’ side in contempt.” Although defendants admittedly failed to deliver a set of Minutes, defendants claim that this was an “honest mistake,” and the Court agrees. Thus, the Court properly exercised its discretion and determined that an offense amounting to an “honest mistake” did not constitute grounds for imposing sanctions for civil contempt. Sentry Armored Courier Corp. v. New York City Off-Track Betting Corp., 75 AD2d 344, 344 (1st Dept 1980) (“One whose offense amounts to no more than an ‘honest mistake’ is not to be held guilty of a civil contempt.”). As to plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants demonstrated “willfulness in withholding the Minutes” pointing to the differences between the minutes submitted by defendants (NYSCEF Doc. No. 148) and the Minutes submitted by plaintiffs (NYSCEF Doc. No. 149), the differences were minimal, there was no prejudice, and the outcome would have been the same anyway. The Court takes this position based on defendant attorney’s affirmation on December 1, 2023, which led the Court to order defendants to “make available for inspection by shareholders, including plaintiffs, all minutes from Madison Avenue Housing Development Fund Corporation…If ‘finalized’ Board minutes are unavailable, defendants are directed to make the most recent ‘draft’ minutes available for inspection.” NYSCEF Doc. No. 153. Defendants explain the alleged discrepancies between the “Final Minutes” provided to plaintiffs and the “Draft Minutes” seen by Vera Vazquez as being the difference between “draft” minutes and “final” minutes approved by the MAHDFC Board, and the Court accepts that explanation. In the Final Analysis Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Court overlooked or misunderstood any facts or law that would materially impact the original decision. Despite the plaintiffs’ efforts to present their case, the essence of their argument remains unchanged, and the additional evidence provided does not alter the Court’s prior conclusions. Defendants’ actions, characterized as an “honest mistake,” do not meet the threshold for civil contempt. Consequently, the Court affirms its original ruling. The Court has considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and finds them to be unavailing and/or non-dispositive. Conclusion Thus, plaintiffs’ motion, pursuant to CPLR 2221, to renew and reargue is denied. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE Dated: February 5, 2024
