Shouse v. Lyons
Opinion of the Court
—Order
We also reject the contention that the court erred in denying defendants’ motion to renew and reargue the motion to vacate the default judgment. The allegedly new facts presented by defendants in the motion to renew were presented to the court in the initial motion. Although defendants may not have been personally aware of the facts, their attorney was, and he presented the facts to the court in an affidavit. A motion to renew must be based on facts that existed at the time of the original motion of which both the party seeking renewal and the court were unaware (see, Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568). Because the facts were known by the court and defendants’ attorney, the motion is properly considered a motion to reargue, and no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, Empire Ins. Co. v Food City, 167 AD2d 983, 984).
Defendants’ remaining contention is raised for the first time on appeal and therefore has not been preserved for our review. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J. — Vacate Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Balio, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.