Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number No. 2006-04799. Attorney(S) Murray B. Schneps, Riverhead, N.Y., for appellant. Anthony B. Tohill, P.C., Riverhead, N.Y., for respondents. Judges Peter B. Skelos Thomas A. Dickerson See more information ... Smart Summary Please sign up to generate summary. MICHAEL STACHNIK ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant, v. HEREFORD DEVELOPMENT CORP. et al., Defendants, and CAROLYN PARALATO et al., Respondents. Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The new facts presented by the plaintiff on its motion for leave to renew were insufficient to change the outcome of the court's prior determination denying the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment ( see CPLR 2221 [e]; Mountains Realty Corp. v Gelbelman, 29 AD3d 874, 875; Lawson v Aspen Ford, Inc., 15 AD3d 628, 630; Steinberg v Steinberg, 15 AD3d 388, 389). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew.