| Hughes v Welsbach Elec. Co. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08287 [101 AD3d 684] |
| December 5, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Eileen Hughes, Appellant, v Welsbach Electric Companyet al., Respondents. |
—[*1] London Fischer LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael J. Carro and Thomas P. Jaffa of counsel),for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Nassau County (Marber, J.), entered July 27, 2011, which denied her motionfor leave to renew and reargue her opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within themeaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident, which had beengranted in an order of the same court dated April 7, 2010.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order entered July 27, 2011, as denied thatbranch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal liesfrom an order denying reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered July 27, 2011, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it isfurther,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.
"A motion for leave to renew shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motionthat would change the prior determination, and shall contain reasonable justification for thefailure to present such facts on the prior motion" (Marrero v Crystal Nails, 77 AD3d 798, 799 [2010]; seeCPLR 2221 [e]; Behar v QuakerRidge Golf Club, Inc., 95 AD3d 808, 809 [2012]; Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v Albert, 78 AD3d 985,986 [2010]). Here, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion whichwas for leave to renew her opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, as thenew evidence offered on the motion would not have changed the prior determination (seeCPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Arthur J.Gallagher & Co. v Marchese, 96 AD3d 791, 792 [2012]; Behar v Quaker Ridge GolfClub, Inc., 95 AD3d at 809; Grossman v New York Life Ins. Co., 90 AD3d 990, 992 [2011]).Dillon, J.P., Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 32 Misc 3d 1222(A),2011 NY Slip Op 51386(U).]