Appeal from an order of the City Court of Mount Vernon, Westchester County (Adam Seiden, J.), entered October 10, 2006. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon granting plaintiff's motion for reargument, adhered to the court's prior order, entered August 19, 2005, granting the motion by defendants Anker Management, Vernon Manor Coop Section I and Richard McCullough for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiff's cross motion seeking, inter alia, leave to amend the complaint.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff pro se commenced the instant action against defendants for assault, battery, libel, slander, malicious prosecution, false arrest, harassment and negligence. After all claims were dismissed against defendant Brandon Sall by order dated June 18, 2004, defendants Anker Management, Vernon Manor Coop Section I and Richard McCullough moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them on the ground, inter alia, that plaintiff's claims were time-barred. Plaintiff cross-moved to, inter alia, amend the complaint. By order entered August 19, 2005, the court below granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing [*2]the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the August 19, 2005 order to this court, and, while said appeal was pending, moved in the City Court to "reinstate" the action to the calendar. By order entered October 10, 2006, the City Court deemed plaintiff's motion one for reargument, granted reargument, and, upon reargument, adhered to its prior order entered August 19, 2005. Thereafter, by order entered November 30, 2006 (Grace v Anker Mgt., 19 Misc 3d 141[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52612[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2006]), this court affirmed the City Court's order entered August 19, 2005. The plaintiff now appeals from the October 10, 2006 order, insofar as it adhered to the court's prior decision.

Plaintiff's motion, denominated as one to "reinstate" the action to the trial calendar, reiterated the same arguments as previously made by her in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment and in support of her cross motion to, inter alia, amend the complaint. Plaintiff indicated that she had new information indicating that the police officer knew that she was innocent before he arrested her and, therefore, there was no probable cause for her arrest. However, plaintiff failed to offer a valid excuse for her failure to present this evidence earlier. Accordingly, the court below properly exercised its discretion in refusing to grant plaintiff leave to renew and to consider such new facts (see CPLR 2221 [e]; Ellner v Schwed, 48 AD3d 739 [2008]; State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v Hertz Corp., 43 AD3d 907 [2007]).

In light of this court's order of November 30, 2006, and given the fact that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that any matters of fact or law were overlooked or misapprehended (CPLR 2221 [d] [2]), the City Court's order entered October 10, 2006, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

McCabe and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.

Rudolph, P.J., taking no part.
Decision Date: July 10, 2008