Gurman v. Fotiades

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for leave to renew their prior motion to vacate a judgment entered upon their default in opposing the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. The defendants failed to present “new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; see Levitin v A.R.B. Mgt. Servs., Inc., 48 AD3d 759 [2008]). Rivera, J.E, Hall, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.