Case Name: Zelouf International Corp., Plaintiff, v. Rivercity, LLC, et al., Respondents, and Demetrios Bekas, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-12-31
Citations: 123 A.D.3d 1116
Docket Number: 
Parties: Zelouf International Corp., Plaintiff, v Rivercity, LLC, et al., Respondents, and Demetrios Bekas, Appellant.
Judges: Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Maltese, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 123
Pages: 1116–1116

Head Matter:
Zelouf International Corp., Plaintiff, v Rivercity, LLC, et al., Respondents, and Demetrios Bekas, Appellant.
[1 NYS3d 190]

Opinion:
In an action to set aside a conveyance of stock as fraudulent under the Debtor and Creditor Law, the defendant Demetrios Bekas appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agate, J.), entered January 10, 2013, which denied his motion for leave to reargue and renew his cross motion for summary judgment on his cross claims against the defendants Rivercity, LLC, Efstathios Valiotis, and Top Cove Associates, Inc., which had been denied in an order of the same court dated July 3, 2012.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion of the defendant Demetrios Bekas which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion of the defendant Demetrios Bekas which was for leave to renew his cross motion for summary judgment on his cross claims against the defendants Rivercity, LLC, Efstathios Valiotis, and Top Cove Associates, Inc. Bekas failed to give any justification whatsoever for the failure to present the new facts on the original cross motion, as required by CPLR 2221 (e) (3). When no reasonable justification is given for failing to present new facts on the prior motion, the Supreme Court lacks discretion to grant renewal (see Matter of Leone Props., LLC v Board of Assessors for Town of Cornwall, 81 AD3d 649, 652 [2011]). Thus the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Bekas's motion which was for leave to renew (see id.; Bazile v City of New York, 94 AD3d 929 [2012]).
Bekas's remaining contentions are not properly before this Court.
Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Maltese, JJ., concur.