Opinion
January 24, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.).
The order holding the defendants in contempt was proper. The record sufficiently supports the IAS court's conclusion that the defendants willfully refused to participate in a court-ordered closing on the subject real property.
The motion for renewal and vacatur should not have been deemed a motion for reargument, since the defendants purported to act on new evidence. Nevertheless, nothing in the record indicates that this purported evidence was newly discovered, and the defendants' bad faith and dilatory conduct in this action militate strongly against discretionary renewal where the facts were known to the parties at the time of the original motion (cf., Oremland v Miller Minutemen Constr. Corp., 133 A.D.2d 816). Similarly, to the extent that defendants moved to vacate prior orders on the basis of alleged fraud, the record shows that the moving defendants lacked good faith and had been dilatory in asserting their rights (Greenwich Sav. Bank v JAJ Carpet Mart, 126 A.D.2d 451). Nor is there persuasive evidence of gross fraud practiced on the court (see, Marine Off. of Am. Corp. v Regal Accessories, 162 A.D.2d 232).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.