Appeals from orders of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Bernice Daun Siegal, J.), entered November 17, 2005 and June 1, 2006. The order entered November 17, 2005 denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The order entered June 1, 2006 denied plaintiff's motion for reargument and/or renewal.

Order entered November 17, 2005 affirmed without costs.

Appeal from so much of the order entered June 1, 2006 as denied that branch of plaintiff's motion seeking reargument dismissed.

Order entered June 1, 2006, insofar as reviewed, affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover for breach of a "finance lease agreement," which, inter alia, contained a choice of law provision selecting the laws of the State of Washington to be applied, the court below denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, on the ground that the affidavit submitted in support thereof was notarized in the State of Washington and was not accompanied by a certificate of conformity (CPLR 2309 [c]). Where, as here, there was no specific objection to the omission of a certificate of conformity in the opposition papers to the motion, and since matters of procedure are governed by the law of the forum state (see Tanges v Heidelberg N. Am., 93 NY2d 48 [1999]), the defect should have been disregarded by the court because it is not a fatal one, but merely a defect in form (see CPLR 2001, 2101 [f]; Smith v Allstate Ins. Co., 38 AD3d 522 [2007]; Sparaco v Sparaco, 309 AD2d 1029 [2003]; Matter of MBNA Am. Bank, [*2]N.A. v Stehly, 19 Misc 3d 12 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]). However, plaintiff's motion papers failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The documentary evidence submitted on the first motion indicated that plaintiff was an assignee of the alleged agreement. Defendant challenged said claim, and plaintiff did not submit proof of the assignment. Thus, a triable issue of fact exists as to
whether plaintiff is entitled to maintain this action (see Smith v Rowe, 3 Wash 2d 320 [1940]; see also Trinity Automotive Servs. Ltd. v Silver, 16 Misc 3d 134[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51503[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]). Accordingly, the order entered November 17, 2005, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, is affirmed.

The appeal from the portion of the order, entered June 1, 2006, which denied the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking reargument is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see Coque v Wildflower Estates Developers, Inc., 31 AD3d 484 [2006]).

The branch of the motion seeking renewal of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment must be denied since plaintiff did not, in presenting new facts, show a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion (CPLR 2221 [e] [3]; see also Hassell v New York Univ. Med. Center, 48 AD3d 632 [2008]). Accordingly, the order entered June 1, 2006, insofar as reviewed, is affirmed.

In view of the foregoing, we pass upon no other issue raised on appeal.

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 30, 2008