| Onglingswan v Chase Home Fin., LLC |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 01792 [104 AD3d 543] |
| March 19, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Alastair Onglingswan, Respondent, v Chase HomeFinance, LLC, et al., Defendants, and Adam Plotch et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Felix Shneiderovsky, PC, Brooklyn (Felix Shneiderovsky of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered October 4,2011, which granted plaintiff's motion to renew and reargue prior motions for summaryjudgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion to renew andreargue denied.
Although plaintiff's motion for reargument was untimely, the court had discretion toreconsider its prior order (seeKleinser v Astarita, 61 AD3d 597, 598 [1st Dept 2009]). In any event, themotion should have been denied because plaintiff sought to improperly advance newtheories that had not been set forth on the initial motion (see DeSoignies v Cornasesk HouseTenants' Corp., 21 AD3d 715, 718 [1st Dept 2005]). The motion to renew alsoshould have been denied, given the absence of any justification for not submitting thepurportedly new evidence on the initial motion (see James v 1620 Westchester Ave.,LLC, 105 AD3d 1,7 [1st Dept 2013]).Further, the circumstances did not warrant renewal in the interest of justice (cf.Garner v Latimer, 306 AD2d 209, 210 [1st Dept 2003]). Concur—Andrias,J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior Case History:2011 NY Slip Op 32854(U).]