This is an action to collect rent allegedly owed under a commercial lease. As initially filed, plaintiff-landlord, Mansion Realty LLC, sought that alleged unpaid rent only from defendant-tenant, 656 6th Ave Gym LLC. On the prior motion, this court granted landlord's request to amend its complaint to add the lease guarantor, Alex Reznik, as a defendant, and to assert claims against guarantor for unpaid rent accruing after June 30, 2021. (See Mansion Realty LLC v 656 6th Ave Gym LLC, 79 Misc 3d 372 [Sup Ct, NY County 2023].) This court rejected guarantor's argument that because tenant is alleged to have first defaulted during the protection [*2]period established by Administrative Code § 22-1005, that statute bars landlord from seeking to hold guarantor liable for rent that came due after the protection period ended on June 30, 2021. (Id. at 375-380.)

Guarantor now moves for leave to renew and reargue. Leave to reargue is denied. Guarantor does not identify any issue of fact or law he raised on the prior motion that this court overlooked or misapprehended. That guarantor disagrees with this court's conclusions does not, without more, warrant leave to reargue. (See Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1st Dept 1979] [explaining that the purpose of a motion for reargument "is not to serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided"].)

Leave to renew is also denied. A change in governing law may constitute a basis for renewal. But guarantor does not identify any change in law that (i) occurred after this court ruled on the prior motion and (ii) might persuade this court to reconsider its ruling. Instead, guarantor relies only on a number of trial-court decisions that were issued before this court's ruling, of which this court was fully aware when resolving the motion.

Indeed, to the extent the law governing this issue has changed since this court's decision, it has changed against guarantor, not for him. In 88 Greenwich Owner LLC v 21 Rector St LLC (2023 NY Slip Op 02960, at *2 [1st Dept 2023]), decided during briefing on this motion, the Appellate Division, First Department, stated that § 22-1005 does not bar a landlord from obtaining "damages for which guarantor became liable outside the statutory [protection] period," notwithstanding that the tenant's initial default occurred during the protection period. The defendant in 88 Greenwich Owner did not raise clearly the arguments that guarantor has advanced in this case. So it is perhaps not completely clear how the First Department would view that argument were it properly presented to the Court. But at a minimum, the First Department's decision in the case suggests that this court's ruling on the prior motion was correct, rather than erroneous.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the branch of guarantor's motion seeking leave to reargue is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the branch of guarantor's motion seeking leave to renew is denied.