Opinion
November 13, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The court properly granted the defendant's motion based upon his submission of a revised net worth statement and further affidavits explaining his financial situation. While the general rule has often been stated that an application for leave to renew should be based on newly discovered facts, the rule is not inflexible and the court may exercise its discretion to grant renewal even upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the original motion (see, Oremland v Miller Minutemen Constr. Corp., 133 A.D.2d 816). Here, the court's comment in connection with the original pendente lite award that the defendant's submissions had failed to provide it with an accurate picture of his finances impliedly invited the defendant to resubmit his financial information in a clearer form (see, Esa v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 89 A.D.2d 865).
The record also supports the court's decision upon renewal to reduce the defendant's obligation for temporary child support to $200 per week. Upon review of all of the relevant factors, including a balancing of the respective finances of the parties with the needs of the two children, as well as consideration of the preseparation standard of living, we find that the sum provided is adequate (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [7] [a]; § 240; see generally, Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 N.Y.2d 132, 141; Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 N.Y.2d 210, 212). Kunzeman, J.P., Rubin, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.