Camancho v Citibank H.E.S.C.

[*1] Camancho v Citibank H.E.S.C. 2006 NY Slip Op 50584(U) [11 Misc 3d 139(A)] Decided on April 6, 2006 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 6, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2005-957 Q C.

Edward Camancho, Appellant,

against

Citibank H.E.S.C., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Bernice Daun Siegal, J.), entered on March 24, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon granting plaintiff's motion for renewal and/or reargument, in effect, adhered to its prior order, dated January 5, 2005, granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed without costs.

While generally a renewal motion must be based, inter alia, upon newly-discovered facts (CPLR 2221 [e]), the additional facts alleged in plaintiff's affidavit submitted in support of the motion for renewal do not warrant granting said motion. Moreover, with respect to that branch of the motion seeking reargument, plaintiff failed to establish that the court misapprehended the law and facts in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Amato v Lord & Taylor, Inc., 10 AD3d 374 [2004]). Accordingly, upon renewal and for reargument, the court below properly adhered to its prior order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 6, 2006