Opinion
Argued February 28, 2000.
April 14, 2000.
In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA article 10 to obtain letters of administration for the estate of Kenneth Timur a/k/a Timmy Migliorati, the objector Tanit Buday appeals from (1) a decree of the Surrogate's Court, Kings County (Feinberg, S.), dated October 2, 1998, which granted the petition, and (2) an order of the same court, dated March 25, 1999, which denied her motion for renewal.
Tanit Buday, Yonkers, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Julie Penny, Sag Harbor, N.Y., respondent pro se.
CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the decree and the order are affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellant personally.
The Surrogate's Court properly issued letters of administration to the petitioner. The appellant, Tanit Buday, contends that the instant proceeding is barred by the Statute of Limitations because it is based on the same claims as another proceeding entitled Matter of Colonna, pending in the Surrogate's Court, Westchester County, under File No. 1987/3403 (see, Matter of Colonna, ___ A.D.2d ___ [decided herewith]). There is no merit to this contention (see,CPLR 203 [g]; 213[8]; Matter of Colonna, supra; Matter of Kraus, 208 A.D.2d 728 ).
The Surrogate's Court properly denied the appellant's motion for renewal. It is well settled that a motion for renewal must be supported by new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time of the original motion, were not known to the party seeking renewal, and, consequently, not made known to the court (see, Palmer v. Toledo, ___ A.D.2d ___ [2d Dept., Nov. 8, 1999]; Matter of Brooklyn Welding Corp. v. Chin, 236 A.D.2d 392 ; Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568 ). Here, the appellant failed to offer any explanation why the affidavits submitted on the motion to renew were not made available earlier (see, Palmer v. Toledo, supra; Foley v. Roche, supra, at 568).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the imposition of a sanction against the appellant is not warranted (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1).
O'BRIEN, J.P., SULLIVAN, FRIEDMANN, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.