Majority
In an
Ordered that the order dated June 19, 2012, is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated January 30, 2013, as denied that branch of the motion of the defendant Davy Seepersad which was, in effect, for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated January 30, 2013, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was, in effect, for leave to renew his opposition to the plaintiff’s prior motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, as the appellant failed to present “new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; see PII Sam, LLC v Mazzurco, 121 AD3d 1063 , 1064 [2014]).
The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit or are not properly before this Court.
Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- PII Sam, LLC v. Mazzurco 121 AD3d 1063 at 1064 p. 1202