Goyzueta v. Urban Health Plan, Inc.

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated December 12, 1997, which, upon renewal, vacated a judgment of the same court, entered October 20, 1997, and, inter alia, ordered a trial de novo.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While it generally is true that a motion to renew must be based on newly-discovered facts, courts have discretion to grant this relief in the interest of justice, although not all of the requirements are met (see, Strong v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Ctr., 240 AD2d 726; Oremland v Miller Minutemen Con*308str. Corp., 133 AD2d 816). It was proper for the Supreme Court, upon renewal, to vacate the judgment which had been entered in favor of the plaintiff and order a trial de novo. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.