In this commercial-lease action, this court denied guarantors Joseph W. Foley and Nada Vasilijevic's CPLR 5015 (a) (3) motion (mot seq 006) to vacate this court's April 2023 order, which granted summary judgment to plaintiffs. (NYSCEF No. 127 [handwritten order on motion to vacate].) Guarantors now move to renew or reargue that order (mot seq 007). Plaintiff cross-[*2]moves for a filing injunction against guarantors (mot seq 007). And guarantors move to strike the cross-motion (mot seq 009).

A motion to renew "shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination." (CPLR 2221 [e].) In contrast, a motion to reargue "shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion." (CPLR 2221 [d].)

Guarantors' motion to renew and reargue is denied. Guarantors offer almost all the same evidence this court considered on the motion to vacate. The only new document guarantors attach reflects their assertion that plaintiff miscalculated the rent owed. (NYSCEF No. 137.) But that document pertains to damages, and guarantors challenged the damages calculation neither in opposing the summary-judgment motion nor on the motion to vacate. (See Fifth Partners LLC v Punch House Flatiron LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 31375[U], *4 [Sup Ct, NY County 2023], affd 227 AD3d 543 [1st Dept 2024] [2023 summary-judgment decision]; NYSCEF No. 111 [guarantors' memorandum on motion to vacate] [no discussion of damages]; DeSoignies v Cornasesk House Tenants' Corp., 21 AD3d 715, 718 [1st Dept 2005] ["Reargument is not available where the movant seeks only to argue a new theory of liability not previously advanced."] [internal quotation marks omitted].) Guarantors do not otherwise show that this court misapprehended any matters of fact or law in denying the motion to vacate under CPLR 5015 (a) (3).^[FN1]

On its cross-motion, plaintiff seeks to enjoin guarantors from bringing further motions in this action or from initiating new actions based on issues that were resolved or which could have been. (NYSCEF No. 172 at 5.) Guarantors move to strike the cross-motion (mot seq 009) as (i) untimely under CPLR 2214 (b) and (ii) unrelated to their motion to renew and reargue. (NYSCEF No. 176 at 1.)

Guarantors' motion to strike the cross-motion (mot seq 009) is denied. Plaintiff properly sought an adjournment to oppose motion sequence 007 on the return date for that motion from the Motion Submissions Part, and filed its papers before the deadline set by that Part. (See NYSCEF No. 151 [Motions Submissions Part adjournment].) Seeking an adjournment on a return date is routine litigation practice, not a violation of CPLR 2214. (See 22 NYCRR 202.8 [e] [2].) Additionally, plaintiff is permitted to cross-move against guarantors for relief unrelated to guarantors' initial motion. (See CPLR 2215 [b].)

The cross-motion is granted. Guarantors have evinced an intent to continue pursuing this action to inconvenience plaintiff. In an August 2024 email, Foley wrote that "I am prepared to [*3]file a Motion for Clarification and a Motion for Leave with the Court of Appeals and pursue this matter to the fullest extent of the first lawsuit on Monday. However, this would result in further legal fees for your client as I will continue as pro se and extend litigation." (NYSCEF No. 169 [email correspondence].) Motion sequence 007 also represents the third time that guarantors have moved to overturn the April 2023 summary-judgment order. (See NYSCEF No. 94 [mot seq 003; motion to renew/reargue; NYSCEF No. 110 [mot seq 006; motion to vacate].) Guarantors also attempted to relitigate issues in this action before other judges. (See Foley v Mehra, Index No. 656191/2023, NYSCEF No. 58 [Justice Lyle E. Frank's order dismissing that action on res-judicata grounds because this court "previously dismissed plaintiffs' causes of action, alleged . . . as a counterclaim"].) Guarantors do not meaningfully oppose plaintiff's request for a filing injunction. Plaintiffs' cross-motion for a filing injunction is granted.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that guarantors' motion to renew and reargue (mot seq 007) is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff's cross-motion for a filing injunction (mot seq 007) is granted; and guarantors are hereby enjoined from filing a new motion in this action or initiating a new action based on issues that were resolved or could have been resolved in this action without first seeking permission from the Administrative Judge for Civil Matters, Supreme Court, New York County; and it is further

ORDERED that guarantors' motion to strike plaintiff's cross-motion (mot seq 009) is denied.