Opinion
December 16, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.).
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
Generally, a motion to renew must be based upon newly-discovered material facts or evidence which existed at the time that the prior motion was made but which were unknown to the party seeking renewal. In this case, the plaintiff failed to offer any valid excuse as to why the allegedly new facts were not previously submitted. Thus, the plaintiff's motion was, in actuality, for reargument (see, Mucciola v City of New York, 177 A.D.2d 553). No appeal lies from an order denying a motion for reargument (see, Mucciola v City of New York, supra). Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.