Opinion
June 5, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.).
Renewal was properly denied, since it was based on facts that were or should have been known to the defendants at the time of their original motion to vacate, and there was no explanation as to why those facts were not asserted on the first motion (Matter of Beiny, 132 A.D.2d 190, 209-210, lv dismissed 71 N.Y.2d 994). It was not an abuse of discretion for the IAS court to decline to excuse deficiency.
Similarly, it was not an abuse of the IAS court's discretion to find that neither a reasonable excuse for the default nor a meritorious defense was demonstrated (Picotte Realty v. Aragona, 87 A.D.2d 955, 956).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Asch, Smith and Rubin, JJ.