O'Connell v. Post

Mar 21, 2006
Versions:27 A.D.3d 631
810 N.Y.S.2d 668

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A motion for leave to renew must (1) be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination and (2) set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Renna v Gullo, 19 AD3d 472 [2005]). The plaintiff‘s motion for leave to renew was properly denied since he failed to set forth a reasonable justification for his failure to present the alleged new facts on the prior motion (see Daria v Beacon Capital Co., 299 AD2d 312, 313 [2002]). Adams, J.P., Santucci, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.