Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to renew. Plaintiff did not submit newly discovered facts that existed but were unknown to it when it made its original motion. Rather, plaintiff asserted on its renewal motion that the original order to show cause had since been properly electronically filed and that the death of defendant-borrower divested the court of jurisdiction to issue the original order. However, his death was not newly discovered, nor was it unknown to plaintiff at the time of the original motion. On the contrary, by its own account, plaintiff was aware of defendant's 2014 death as early as October 6, 2015, when it was informed of the death at a hearing. Plaintiff also did not offer a reasonable justification for its failure to include the purportedly new facts on the original motion, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e][2] and [3].
In any event, the motion fails on the merits. Plaintiff failed to establish how defendant's death would have affected the merits of this case, nor did it establish that a stay of the proceedings was mandated pending substitution of a legal representative under CPLR 1015(a). Before defendant's death, the mortgage was in default, this action had been commenced, and plaintiff had already been granted summary judgment on its complaint as against defendant.
Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v. Vitucci, NY Slip Op 04366 (1st Dep't July 9, 2026)
