Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Johnny Lee Baynes, J.), entered July 15, 2005. The order denied plaintiff's motion for renewal of its prior summary judgment motion which was denied in an order entered June 28, 2004.

Order affirmed without costs.

As stated by the Appellate Division, Second Department, in Renna v Gullo:
"A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination,' and must set forth a reasonable
justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion' (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Yarde v New York City Tr. Auth., 4 AD3d 352 [2004]; Riccio v DePeralta, 274 AD2d 384 [2000]). While it may be within the court's discretion to grant renewal upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the original motion (see J.D. Structures v Waldbaum, 282 AD2d 434 [2001]; Cronwall Equities v International Links Dev. Corp., 255 AD2d 354 [1998]), [*2]a motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation' (see Rubinstein v Goldman, 225 AD2d 328, 329 [1996] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also O'Dell v Caswell, 12 AD3d 492 [2004]; Hart v City of New York, 5 AD3d 438 [2004]; Carota v Wu, 284 AD2d 614 [2001])" (19 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]).

In this case, plaintiff's motion for renewal made no attempt to comply with the statutory requirement that a motion for renewal "shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, the motion was properly denied.

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Belen, JJ.
Decision Date: November 13, 2006