Case ID: ad2d_175/html/0571-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Town of Niagara, Appellant, v City of Niagara Falls et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) City of Niagara Falls, Respondent, v CECOS International, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Town of Niagara, Appellant. (Action No. 2.)
    (Appeal No. 2.)
   — Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion characterized by plaintiff as seeking “leave to reargue and/or renew”. We conclude that plaintiff’s motion is one to renew, and not one to reargue, because it was made on the ground of additional material facts not previously considered. The renewal of a motion should be denied where, as here, the movant "failed to provide a valid excuse for not submitting the additional evidence in the original application” (Monroe Dewey Partners v MDR Dev., 159 AD2d 949; see also, Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J. — Renewal.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.