COALITION OF LANDLORDS HOMEOWNERS AND MERCHANTS INC v. GLASS (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and violation of Judiciary Law § 487, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (John H. Rouse, J.), dated April 4, 2022.  The order denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to reargue and renew their opposition to the defendants' prior motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the amended complaint, which had been granted in an order of the same court dated December 18, 2021.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated April 4, 2022, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Zaccagnino, 214 A.D.3d 754, 756–757, 186 N.Y.S.3d 42);  and it is further,

ORDERED that the order dated April 4, 2022, is affirmed insofar as reviewed;  and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendants, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants knowingly submitted a fraudulent lease agreement to the District Court, Suffolk County, in connection with a holdover proceeding (see Anthi New Neocronon Corp. v. Coalition of Landlords, 73 Misc.3d 136[A], 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 51067[U], 2021 WL 5292594 [App. Term, 2d Dept., 9th & 10th Jud. Dists.]) and to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, in connection with a plenary action commenced by the plaintiffs seeking, among other things, a judgment declaring their rights pursuant to a purported purchase agreement for the building where they rented their offices (see Coalition of Landlords, Homeowners & Merchants, Inc. v. S. & A. Neocronon, Inc., 224 A.D.3d 658, 205 N.Y.S.3d 414).  The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the amended complaint.  In an order dated December 18, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion.  Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved for leave to reargue and renew their opposition to the defendants' prior motion.  In an order dated April 4, 2022, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion.  The plaintiffs appeal.

A motion pursuant to CPLR 2221(e) for leave to renew “shall be based on new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (id. § 2221[e][2], [3];  see Goshen Mtge., LLC v. Rokowetz, 221 A.D.3d 588, 199 N.Y.S.3d 156).  Here, the plaintiffs failed to offer new facts that would have changed the Supreme Court's prior determination.  Accordingly, the court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for leave to renew their opposition to the defendants' prior motion (see Green v. Hyacinth Green Irrevocable Living Trust, 240 A.D.3d 485, 235 N.Y.S.3d 183;  U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v. Gordon, 236 A.D.3d 705, 707, 229 N.Y.S.3d 490).

DUFFY, J.P., MILLER, VOUTSINAS and HOM, JJ., concur.