Majority
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of
Ordered that the order entered April 24, 2012, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
A motion for leave to renew must be “based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination,” and must contain a “reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]; see Matter of Korman v Bellmore Pub. Schools, 62 AD3d 882 , 884 [2009]). Here, the defendant did not present a reasonable justification for his failure to present the alleged new fact on his prior motion (see CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; see Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v Ghaness, 100 AD3d 585 , 586 [2012]). In any event, the alleged new fact relied upon by the defendant would not have changed the prior determination denying his motion to vacate the default judgment (see Development Strategies Co., LLC, Profit Sharing Plan v Astoria Equities, Inc., 71 AD3d 628 , 629 [2010]).
Mastro, J.P, Leventhal, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Korman v. Bellmore Public Schools 62 AD3d 882 at 884 p. 946
- Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v. Ghaness 100 AD3d 585 at 586 p. 946
- Development Strategies Co. v. Astoria Equities, Inc. 71 AD3d 628 at 629 p. 946