| Dinten-Quiros v Brown |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02099 [49 AD3d 588] |
| March 11, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Marcella Dinten-Quiros, Appellant, v Kofi E. Brown,Respondent. |
—[*1] Baker, McEvoy, Morrissey & Moskovits, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Stacy R. Seldin of counsel),for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Giacobbe, J.), datedMarch 26, 2007, as denied that branch of her motion which was for leave to renew her oppositionto the defendant's prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the groundthat she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d),which had been granted in an order of the same court dated March 27, 2006.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In support of that branch of her motion which was for leave to renew, the plaintiff wasrequired to proffer both new facts not presented on the prior motion that would warrant denial ofthe defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and a reasonablejustification for the failure to have presented such facts at that time (see CPLR 2221 [e][2], [3]; Madison v Tahir, 45 AD3d744 [2007]; St. Claire v Gaskin, 295 AD2d 336, 337 [2002]). Here, the plaintiff didnot provide a reasonable justification for her failure to proffer the alleged new facts in oppositionto the defendant's prior motion. Moreover, the alleged new facts would not have warranted denialof the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly deniedthat branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to renew. Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Miller,Carni and Eng, JJ., concur.