| Matter of Choy v Mai Ling Lai |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00369 [91 AD3d 772] |
| Jnury 17, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Tonny Choy, Appellant, v Mai Ling Lai,Respondent. |
—[*1]
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order ofthe Family Court, Suffolk County (Hoffman, J.), dated March 14, 2011, which denied hisobjections to an order of the same court (Parisi, S.M.), dated December 28, 2010, which deniedhis motion, inter alia, for leave to renew his prior motion to vacate a support order of the samecourt (Parisi, S.M.), dated June 26, 2008, entered upon his consent, which had been denied in anorder of the same court dated June 18, 2010.
Ordered that the order dated March 14, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A motion for leave to renew "shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motionthat would change the prior determination" (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]) and "shall contain reasonablejustification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; see Barnett v Smith, 64 AD3d 669,670 [2009]; Chernysheva vPinchuck, 57 AD3d 936, 937 [2008]). Here, that branch of the father's motion whichwas for leave to renew his motion to vacate the support order dated June 26, 2008, was properlydenied by the Support Magistrate, as the allegedly new facts offered would not have changed theprior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]).
The father's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.Angiolillo, J.P., Lott, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.