Opinion
2003-00164.
Decided May 10, 2004.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered November 26, 2002, as granted the defendants' motion for leave to renew her prior motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability and, upon renewal, vacated its prior orders entered May 3, 2002, and August 9, 2002, respectively, and, in effect, denied the motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Greenspan Greenspan, White Plains, N.Y. (Michael E. Greenspan of counsel), for appellant.
Alan B. Brill, P.C., Suffern, N.Y. (Ernest S. Buonocore of counsel), for respondents.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, STEPHEN G. CRANE REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
"A motion to renew is intended to draw the court's attention to new or additional facts which, although in existence at the time of the original motion, were unknown to the party seeking leave to renew and therefore not brought to the court's attention" ( Natale v. Samel Assocs., 264 A.D.2d 384, 385). However, this requirement is a flexible one and the court, in its discretion, may grant renewal, in the interest of justice, upon facts which were known to the movant where the movant offers a reasonable justification for failing to submit them on the earlier motion ( see Hasmath v. Cameb, A.D.3d [2d Dept, Mar. 8, 2004]; Bepat v. Chandler, 2 A.D.3d 764; Vita v. Alstom Signaling, 308 A.D.2d 582; cf. Morrison v. Rosenberg, 278 A.D.2d 392; Cole-Hatchard v. Grand Union, 270 A.D.2d 447). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in granting leave to renew.
Upon renewal, the Supreme Court properly vacated its prior orders, and, in effect, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. There are triable issues of fact with respect to liability for the subject accident ( see CPLR 3212; see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).
FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.