Task: Text Categorization
Input (English): plaintiff's motion should have been denied, since the new evidence that plaintiff submitted in support of renewal, a loan document purporting to reduce the interest rate to the legal rate in the event of a finding of usury, would not change the prior determination that the loan was criminally usurious (see bakhash v winston, 134 ad3d 468 [1st dept 2015]; cplr 2221[e][2]).
Output (English): non-overruling