| Kranenberg v TKRS Pub, Inc. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06786 [99 AD3d 769] |
| October 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| John Kranenberg, Appellant, v TKRS Pub, Inc., DoingBusiness as Bungalow Bills Saloon, et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Abrams, Gorelick, Friedman & Jacobson, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jessica F. Napoli ofcounsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by hisnotice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Butler, J.), entered October 18, 2011, as denied that branch of his motion which was for leave torenew his opposition to those branches of the defendants' motion which were for summaryjudgment dismissing the first and third causes of action.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The relevant facts are set forth in a related appeal (see Kranenberg v TKRS Pub, Inc.,99 AD3d 767 [2012] [decided herewith]).
In his original papers submitted in opposition to the defendants' motion for summaryjudgment, the plaintiff submitted a videotape without any evidence of its authenticity and, thus,the Supreme Court declined to consider it. The Supreme Court granted those branches of thedefendants' motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the first and third causes ofaction, and the plaintiff subsequently moved, inter alia, for leave to renew his opposition to thosebranches of the defendants' motion, again submitting the videotape, together with an affidavit toauthenticate it.
A motion for leave to renew must be "based upon new facts not offered on the prior motionthat would change the prior determination," and must provide a "reasonable justification for thefailure to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221 [e] [2], [3]; see Rowe v NYCPD, 85 AD3d1001, 1003 [2011]; Matter ofKorman v Bellmore Pub. Schools, 62 AD3d 882, 884 [2009]). Here, even assuming thatthe plaintiff's excuse for failing to provide the affidavit in his original opposition papers could bedeemed a reasonable justification, the facts derived from the videotape did not raise a triableissue of fact as to the first and third causes of action, and thus, the videotape would not havechanged the Supreme Court's prior determination granting those branches of the defendants'motion which were for summary judgment dismissing those causes of action (see Millan v AMF Bowling [*2]Ctrs., Inc., 38 AD3d 860, 861 [2007]). Accordingly, leaveto renew was properly denied (see Matter of Korman v Bellmore Pub. Schools, 62 AD3dat 884). Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.