In this decisions the Appellate Division explains that "[n]o appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue (see Budin v Davis, 172 AD3d 1676, 1679 [2019]) and, therefore, the only issue before it in its considering this action was the propriety of the Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's motion to renew.
In this regard, said the court, "[a] motion to renew must be based on new facts not previously offered that would change the prior determination and must contain a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the original motion."
A motion to renew, opined the Appellate Division, is not a second chance to remedy inadequacies that occurred in failing to exercise due diligence in the first instance, and the denial of a motion to renew will be disturbed only where it constituted an abuse of the trial court's discretion" (Walden v Varricchio, 195 AD3d 1111, 1114 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Williams v Annucci, 175 AD3d 1677, 1679 [2019]).
Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that there no abuse of that discretion on the part of the lower court.
Click HEREto access the Appellate Division's decision.