On January 17, 2024, the Second Department issued a decision in Sutton v. Syla, 2024 NY Slip Op. 00204, holding that a court may not grant renewal if there is no justification for failing earlier to present the evidence upon which the motion for renewal was based, explaining:
The courts are not bound by the label appended to the motion by a party, and can designate a motion for renewal as one for reargument if it presents neither new facts nor a change in the law. Here, while the defendants labeled their motion as one for leave to renew, only the argument that the parties were improperly served was based upon new information set forth in Farije Syla’s affidavit. Accordingly, the appeal from so much of the order as denied those branches of the defendants’ motion which raised the issues of excusable default and res judicata due to the prior landlord and tenant litigation must be dismissed, as those branches of the motion were, in actuality, for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable.
A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion which would change the prior determination, and must contain a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion. While it may be within the court’s discretion to grant leave to renew upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the prior motion, a motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation. When no reasonable justification is given for failing to present new facts on the prior motion, the Supreme Court lacks discretion to grant renewal.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).