Opinion
March 12, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.).
The IAS court's denial of plaintiff's cross motion for renewal was not an abuse of discretion. The motion was not supported by new facts that could not have readily and with due diligence been made part of the original motion, and plaintiff failed to offer a valid excuse for not submitting the additional facts on the original motion (Matter of Beiny, 132 A.D.2d 190, 210, lv dismissed 71 N.Y.2d 994). Nor was it an abuse of discretion to deny the plaintiff's cross motion insofar as it sought leave to amend the complaint so as to state, with more particularity, causes of action as against Lindsey, the proposed new allegations being conclusory, speculative and unsupported by any evidentiary showing establishing the merits of the proposed pleading (Webster Corp. v Bozell Jacobs, 167 A.D.2d 145, 146).
We have considered the plaintiff's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.