Opinion
June 30, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.).
Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Although Special Term referred to the petitioner's motion as one for renewal and reargument of the proceeding resulting in the judgment under review, the motion was based not upon new facts, but upon new legal argument, and is therefore actually a motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Schaefer v. Long Is. R.R., 112 A.D.2d 153; F G Heating Co. v. Board of Educ., 103 A.D.2d 791, appeal dismissed 64 N.Y.2d 1109; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wernick, 90 A.D.2d 519). Even if this court were to accept the petitioner's characterization of the motion as one to renew, it was based upon evidence available at the time of the original motion and the petitioner has not offered a reasonable excuse for his failure to produce the evidence at the time of the original motion. Thus the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion (see, Caffee v Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 352; Matter of Schwartz v. New York City Tr. Auth., 104 A.D.2d 370, appeal dismissed 63 N.Y.2d 914; Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558).
Furthermore, the court did not err in dismissing the petition to the extent that it sought to review the respondents' determination denying the petitioner's application for an agricultural value assessment. That determination was supported by the weight of the evidence, and the petitioner's general, conclusory denial of any wrongdoing did not serve to rebut the presumption of validity attached to the respondents' assessment of his property (see, Farash v. Smith, 59 N.Y.2d 952; Matter of Manno v. Finance Administrator of City of N.Y., 92 A.D.2d 896). Gibbons, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.