MB FINANCIAL BANK v. Rey Olsen, Nonparty-Appellant. (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered November 6, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs and appealable, denied nonparty Rey Olsen's motion for leave to renew 1) his motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and all prior orders in this action and dismiss the action, and 2) his motion to renew and reargue his motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and restore the action to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.  Appeal from aforementioned order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper to the extent it denied Olsen's motion to reargue.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying Olsen's motion for leave to renew (see CPLR 2221[e][2]).  Olsen failed to support his motion with “new facts or information which could not have been readily and with due diligence made part of the original motion” (Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568, 418 N.Y.S.2d 588 [1st Dept. 1979]), and the court properly concluded that Olsen's submissions on the motion would not have changed the prior determinations (see CPLR 2221[e][2];  In re East 51st Street Crane Collapse Litig., 100 A.D.3d 503, 503–504, 954 N.Y.S.2d 64 [1st Dept. 2012]).  Olsen's affiants both averred that they memorialized in writing their partial assignments to Olsen but neither of them attached those documents to their affidavits or otherwise explained the scope of those assignments.  Without this evidence, the affiants' conclusory statements regarding their purported assignments were insufficient (see Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. v. Gould, 171 A.D.3d 638, 638–639, 101 N.Y.S.3d 2 [1st Dept. 2019]).

We have considered Olsen's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.