Opinion
2016–02628 Index No. 704401/14
08-22-2018
ANALIESE HOME CORP., respondent, v. Joseph MANNARI, et al., appellants, et al., defendant.
Goetz Fitzpatrick, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Maxwell J. Rubin of counsel), for appellants. Zisholtz & Zisholtz, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Meng Cheng, Long Island City, of counsel), for respondent.
Goetz Fitzpatrick, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Maxwell J. Rubin of counsel), for appellants.
Zisholtz & Zisholtz, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Meng Cheng, Long Island City, of counsel), for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Joseph Mannari and Mannpower Contracting Corp. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dennis J. Butler, J.), dated February 29, 2016. The order denied the motion of those defendants for leave to renew their prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them and their opposition to the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts, not offered on the original application, that would change the prior determination" ( Rowe v. NYCPD, 85 A.D.3d 1001, 1003, 926 N.Y.S.2d 121 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). "Leave to renew is not warranted where the factual material adduced in connection with the subsequent motion is merely cumulative with respect to the factual material submitted in connection with the original motion" ( Matter of Orange & Rockland Util. v Assessor of Town of Haverstraw, 304 A.D.2d 668, 669, 758 N.Y.S.2d 151 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see City of New York v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 21 A.D.3d 982, 801 N.Y.S.2d 389 ).
In support of their motion for leave to renew, the defendants Joseph Mannari and Mannpower Contracting Corp. (hereinafter together the defendants) failed to submit any new information that would have changed the prior determination. The material submitted in support of the motion was merely cumulative with respect to the factual material submitted in connection with the original motion and cross motion (see Yerushalmi v. Yerushalmi, 82 A.D.3d 1217, 919 N.Y.S.2d 374 ; City of New York v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 21 A.D.3d at 983, 801 N.Y.S.2d 389 ). Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the defendants' motion for leave to renew.
AUSTIN, J.P., ROMAN, COHEN and BARROS, JJ., concur.