Opinion
965-, 966 Index No. 100451/17 Case Nos. 2023-02777, 2023-02793
11-02-2023
In the Matter of Allen PATTERSON, Petitioner–Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Allen Patterson, appellant pro se.
Allen Patterson, appellant pro se.
Oing, J.P., Moulton, Gonza´lez, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered February 22, 2023, which, to the extent appealable and appealed from, denied petitioner's motion for leave to renew a prior motion to amend the petition to annul a determination of respondent City of New York Civil Service Commission, dated December 16, 2016, affirming a September 22, 2016 determination of the New York City Administration of Children's Services (ACS) terminating petitioner's employment, and a determination of the Civil Service Commission, dated March 6, 2017, affirming an October 6, 2016 determination of the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services disqualifying petitioner from employment with the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission based on ACS's findings, and for leave to renew respondents’ prior motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered March 30, 2023, which denied petitioner's motion for leave to renew the prior motions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's motions to the extent they sought leave to renew, as petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not presenting the new evidence at the time of the petition or prior motions ( CPLR 2221(e)(3) ; see Wade v. Giacobbe, 176 A.D.3d 641, 641, 112 N.Y.S.3d 46 [1st Dept. 2019], lv dismissed 35 N.Y.3d 937, 124 N.Y.S.3d 323, 147 N.E.3d 593 [2020] ). In any event, petitioner failed to establish that the new evidence would have changed the outcome of the petition or prior motions ( CPLR 2221[e][2] ; 4 NYCRR 5.3 [b]; Matter of Patterson v. City of New York, 173 A.D.3d 540, 541, 100 N.Y.S.3d 523 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 906, 2020 WL 3097002 [2020], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 143 S.Ct. 245, 214 L.Ed.2d 83 [2022] ).
To the extent petitioner seeks review of the court's denial of his motion for leave to reargue, the denial of a motion for leave to reargue is not appealable (see Aldalali v. Sungold Assoc. Ltd. Partnership, 172 A.D.3d 555, 556, 98 N.Y.S.3d 741 [1st Dept. 2019] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.