Opinion
2011-11-10
Ramon MEJIA–ORTIZ, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.Gavin R. INOA, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Calcagno & Associates, Staten Island (Craig A. Borgen of counsel), for appellant.Law Offices of Michael A. Barnett, Garden City (Jay M. Weinstein of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered April 23, 2010, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiff's motion to, among other things, renew a prior motion for a default judgment against defendant Brown–Grey, and dismissed the action as abandoned, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
No appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue ( DiPasquale v. Gutfleish, 74 A.D.3d 471, 901 N.Y.S.2d 837 [2010] ). Supreme Court properly denied the motion to renew. The only new facts submitted in support of the motion relate to plaintiff's counsel's attempts to serve defendant Inoa after commencement of the action. Even if counsel provided a reasonable
explanation for failing to include those facts in the prior motion, they do not warrant a change in the prior determination ( see CPLR 2221[e][2],[3] ). Indeed, plaintiff still failed to provide an affidavit of merit or a reasonable excuse for the 2 1/2–year delay in moving for a default judgment against defendant Brown–Grey ( see Mejia–Ortiz v. Inoa, 71 A.D.3d 517, 895 N.Y.S.2d 816 [2010] ). The medical records submitted in reply were not properly before the motion court and, in any event, were not affirmed ( see Ritt v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 182 A.D.2d 560, 562, 582 N.Y.S.2d 712 [1992] ).
SAXE, J.P., SWEENY, DeGRASSE, MANZANET–DANIELS, ROMÁN, JJ., concur.