Opinion
June 12, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.).
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
The appellant's motion, characterized as one for renewal and reargument, was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time of the original motion and is therefore actually a motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see, e.g., Mgrditchian v. Donato, 141 A.D.2d 513; Matter of Bosco, 141 A.D.2d 639; Matter of Kadish v. Colombo, 121 A.D.2d 722). Even if the motion were deemed one for renewal, it was properly denied as the defendant has not offered a reasonable excuse for its failure to produce the evidence at the time of the original motion (see, Matter of Bosco, 141 A.D.2d 639, supra; Caffee v. Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 352). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.