Opinion
June 20, 2000.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered September 30, 1999, which granted defendant husband's motion for partial summary judgment and declared that his interest in the New York Daily News is his separate property and not subject to equitable distribution, and order, same court and Justice, entered December 20, 1999, which,inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for reargument, and, upon reargument, adhered to its September 30, 1999 order and judgment, and denied plaintiff's motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
John J. Witmeyer III, for plaintiff-appellant.
Judd Burstein, for defendant-respondent.
Before: Williams, J.P., Tom, Rubin, Andrias, JJ.
Based on the unchallenged assertions of the husband and the parties' unambiguous prenuptial agreement, the court properly determined that the husband's interest in the newspaper was his separate property and, accordingly, that he was entitled to partial summary judgment. The court also properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff wife's motion for renewal since her assertions concerning her former attorney's failure to properly advise her constituted an insufficient excuse for omitting the allegedly new material in opposition to the husband's motion for partial summary judgment (see, Dankner v. Szurzan Dorf, Inc., 226 A.D.2d 669; Welch Foods, Inc. v. Wilson, 247 A.D.2d 830).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.