Opinion
November 10, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
This Court's prior decision and order dismissing the plaintiff's complaint ( see, Stone v. Bridgehampton Race Circuit, 217 A.D.2d 541) precluded the Supreme Court from examining the merits of the plaintiff's subsequent motion, except to the extent that this subsequent motion can be said to be based on new facts which, with due diligence, could not have been produced earlier ( see, e.g., Olsen v. We'll Manage, 238 A.D.2d 556; Harrell v. Koppers Co., 154 A.D.2d 340; Sciss v. Metal Polishers Union Local 8A, 149 A.D.2d 318; NAB Constr. Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Cos., 75 A.D.2d 790, affd 53 N.Y.2d 964; Matter of Banow v. Simins, 53 A.D.2d 542). In support of her motion, the plaintiff did submit new information; however, this new information was not inconsistent in any material way with the information upon which this Court's prior decision and order were predicated. Leave to renew is not warranted where the factual material adduced in connection with the subsequent motion is merely cumulative with respect to the factual material submitted in connection with the original motion ( see, Anchor Sav. Bank v. Alpha Developers, 143 A.D.2d 711; Tedaldi v. Lerner, 172 A.D.2d 603; Green v. Wright, 126 A.D.2d 514; see also, 2 Carmody-Wait 2d, N Y Prac § 8:71).
Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.