IN RE: ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY (2009)

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), entered January 7, 2008, which denied its motion for leave to renew the petition to confirm the award, which was denied in an order of the same court dated November 22, 2006.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 Although a motion for leave to renew generally must be based on newly-discovered facts, this requirement is a flexible one, and a court has the discretion to grant renewal upon facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion, provided that the movant offers a reasonable justification for the failure to submit the additional facts on the original motion (see Matter of Gold v. Gold, 53 A.D.3d 485, 487, 861 N.Y.S.2d 748;  Matter of Surdo v. Levittown Pub. School Dist., 41 A.D.3d 486, 837 N.Y.S.2d 315;  Heaven v. McGowan, 40 A.D.3d 583, 835 N.Y.S.2d 641;  Allstate Ins. Co. v. Davis, 23 A.D.3d 418, 803 N.Y.S.2d 923).   Nevertheless, “[a] motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation” (Elder v. Elder, 21 A.D.3d 1055, 1055, 802 N.Y.S.2d 457;  see Lardo v. Rivlab Transp. Corp., 46 A.D.3d 759, 848 N.Y.S.2d 337;  Matter of Leyberman v. Leyberman, 43 A.D.3d 925, 842 N.Y.S.2d 460).

 Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying its motion for leave to renew.   The petitioner's motion was based upon evidence that either was in its possession at the time its petition to confirm the arbitration award was brought, or could have been obtained earlier with due diligence, and it did not sufficiently justify, inter alia, its failure to attach a copy of the award it was seeking to confirm to its petition.   Moreover, the petitioner failed to offer a reasonable justification for its eight-month delay in moving for leave to renew to correct various deficiencies in the petition, which included the failure to submit a copy of the arbitration award (see Christ v. Solomon, 6 A.D.3d 569, 774 N.Y.S.2d 833;  Matter of Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. v. Singh, 297 A.D.2d 349, 746 N.Y.S.2d 399;  Cole-Hatchard v. Grand Union, 270 A.D.2d 447, 448, 705 N.Y.S.2d 605).