Opinion
01-04160
Argued February 25, 2002
June 3, 2002
In consolidated actions to foreclose a mortgage and rescind a real estate contract for the sale of real property, Richard Williams, the plaintiff in Action No. 1 and the defendant in Action No. 2, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated April 16, 2001, which granted the motion of Patrick J. Fitzsimmons, a/k/a Joseph P. Fitzsimmons, a defendant in Action No. 1 and the plaintiff in Action No. 2, for leave to renew and, upon renewal, granted Fitzsimmons's prior motion to rescind a real estate contract and denied Williams's prior motion for summary judgment in the foreclosure action.
Zavatsky, Mendelsohn, Gross, Savino Levy, LLP, Syosset, N Y (Joseph C. Savino of counsel), for appellant.
John L. O'Kelly, East Williston, N.Y., for respondent.
CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for leave to renew is denied.
A motion for leave to renew must be supported by new or additional facts "not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination" and "shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221[e][2], [3] [eff. July 20, 1999]; see Malik v. Campbell, 289 A.D.2d 540; Good Samaritan Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Ruscito, 287 A.D.2d 538; Matter of Goetschius v. Board of Educ. of Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School Dist., 281 A.D.2d 418, 418-419; Kwang Bok Yi v. Seong Ahn, 278 A.D.2d 372). Here, Patrick F. Fitzsimmons, the defendant in the foreclosure action and the plaintiff in the rescission action, failed to offer such justification. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting his renewal motion.
O'BRIEN, J.P., LUCIANO, TOWNES and CRANE, JJ., concur.