Case Name: 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.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1991-07-12
Citations: 175 A.D.2d 571
Docket Number: Appeal No. 2
Parties: 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.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 175
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
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.)

Opinion:
— 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.