| Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Liberty Mut. Ins. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00377 [58 AD3d 727] |
| January 20, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Allstate Insurance Company,Appellant, v Liberty Mutual Insurance, Respondent. |
—[*1] Malapero & Priso LLP, New York, N.Y. (Dhruv A. Dhavan and Ian Forman of counsel), forrespondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, the petitionerappeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), entered January 7,2008, which denied its motion for leave to renew the petition to confirm the award, which wasdenied in an order of the same court dated November 22, 2006.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Although a motion for leave to renew generally must be based on newly-discovered facts,this requirement is a flexible one, and a court has the discretion to grant renewal upon factsknown to the movant at the time of the original motion, provided that the movant offers areasonable justification for the failure to submit the additional facts on the original motion (see Matter of Gold v Gold, 53 AD3d485, 487 [2008]; Matter of Surdo vLevittown Pub. School Dist., 41 AD3d 486 [2007]; Heaven v McGowan, 40 AD3d 583 [2007]; Allstate Ins. Co. v Davis, 23 AD3d418 [2005]). Nevertheless, "[a] motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freelygiven to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation"(Elder v Elder, 21 AD3d 1055,1055 [2005]; see Lardo v RivlabTransp. Corp., 46 AD3d 759 [2007]; Matter of Leyberman v Leyberman, 43 AD3d 925 [2007]).
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise itsdiscretion in denying its motion for leave to renew. The petitioner's motion was based uponevidence that [*2]either was in its possession at the time itspetition to confirm the arbitration award was brought, or could have been obtained earlier withdue diligence, and it did not sufficiently justify, inter alia, its failure to attach a copy of the awardit was seeking to confirm to its petition. Moreover, the petitioner failed to offer a reasonablejustification for its eight-month delay in moving for leave to renew to correct variousdeficiencies in the petition, which included the failure to submit a copy of the arbitration award(see Christ v Solomon, 6 AD3d569 [2004]; Matter of Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. v Singh, 297 AD2d 349 [2002];Cole-Hatchard v Grand Union, 270 AD2d 447, 448 [2000]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon,McCarthy and Eng, JJ., concur.