| Matter of Leyberman v Leyberman |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06687 [43 AD3d 925] |
| September 11, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Miriam Leyberman, Appellant, v LevLeyberman, Respondent. |
—[*1] Elaine McKnight, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the petitioner appeals from anorder of the Family Court, Nassau County (Marks, J.), dated October 31, 2006, which denied hermotion for leave to renew and reargue an order of the same court dated August 28, 2006, whichdenied her objections to an order of the same court (Kahlon, S.M.), dated April 19, 2006.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the petitioner'smotion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from the denial ofreargument; 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 respondent.
A motion for leave to renew, inter alia, "shall be based upon new facts not offered on theprior motion that would change the prior determination" (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]) and "shall containreasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221 [e][3]). A motion for "renewal 'is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exerciseddue diligence in making their first factual presentation' " (Rubinstein v Goldman, 225AD2d 328, 328-329 [1996], quoting Matter of Weinberg, 132 AD2d 190, 210 [1987]).Here, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the petitioner'smotion which was for leave to [*2]renew since the petitionerfailed to present "new facts" that were unavailable to her at the time she filed her writtenobjections and which would change the prior determination (see Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 37 AD3d 594 [2007]; Giovanni v Moran, 34 AD3d 733,734 [2006]). Prudenti, P.J., Mastro, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.