Case Name: Bank of New York Mellon, Formerly Known as Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Holders of the GE-WMC Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificate, Series 2005-2, Respondent, v. Jennifer Garrett, Appellant, et al., Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-11-02
Citations: 144 A.D.3d 621
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bank of New York Mellon, Formerly Known as Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Holders of the GE-WMC Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificate, Series 2005-2, Respondent, v Jennifer Garrett, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
Judges: Rivera, J.R, Austin, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 621–621

Head Matter:
Bank of New York Mellon, Formerly Known as Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Holders of the GE-WMC Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificate, Series 2005-2, Respondent, v Jennifer Garrett, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
[39 NYS3d 829]

Opinion:
—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Jennifer Garrett appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated October 2, 2013, which denied those branches of her motion which were for leave to reargue and renew her opposition to that branch of the plaintiff's prior motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against her.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion 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 plaintiff.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendants Jennifer Garrett and Marvin Bracey against their residential property located in Chester, New York.
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Garrett's motion which was for leave to renew her opposition to that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against her. A motion for leave to renew must be based, as is relevant here, on "new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination" (CPLR 2221 [e]). Here, the new facts offered by Garrett would not have changed the prior determination.
The parties' remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit.
Rivera, J.R, Austin, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.