Opinion
11391 Index 100241/16
04-16-2020
In re YU CHAN LI, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION, Respondent–Respondent.
Marc H. Gerstein, New York, for appellant. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Claudia Brodskyof counsel), for respondent.
Marc H. Gerstein, New York, for appellant.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Claudia Brodskyof counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Oing, Singh, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered March 26, 2019, which denied petitioner's motion for reargument and renewal, unanimously affirmed, as to renewal, and appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.
The article 78 court providently exercised its discretion in declining to grant leave to renew, as petitioner raised no new facts that would have changed the outcome of the prior order and judgment, and did not provide a reasonable excuse for failing to present those facts with the petition ( CPLR 2221[e] ; see Wade v. Giacobbe, 176 A.D.3d 641, 112 N.Y.S.3d 46 [1st Dept. 2019] ). Petitioner's decision to perform additional research about the area that was designated a historic district only after the court issued its order and judgment does not warrant renewal.
The denial of a motion for leave to reargue is not appealable ( Aldalali v. Sungold Assoc. Ltd. Partnership, 172 A.D.3d 555, 98 N.Y.S.3d 741 [1st Dept. 2019] ).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.