Ordered that the order and judgment and the order are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the defendants established that they were entitled to immunity from suit ( see Haddock v. City of New York, 75 NY2d 478; Shapiro v. Town of Clarkstown, 238 AD2d 498; Rosen Bardunias v. County of Westchester, 158 AD2d 679; Rottkamp v. Young, 21 AD2d 373, affd 15 NY2d 831; Stromberg v. Town of Oyster Bay, 140 Misc 2d 295; cf. Chetrick v. Cohen, 305 AD2d 359).
Moreover, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew since the newspaper article submitted by the plaintiff as new evidence was not admissible ( see Young v. Fleary, 226 AD2d 454) and, in any event, was conclusory and irrelevant.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions either are without merit or academic.