We reject the excess insurer's argument that it was a condition precedent to arbitration that the insured and primary insurer share the cost of the Investigative Specialist selected by the insured from the list of Investigative Specialists contained in the endorsement attached to the primary policy. The insured did exactly what the primary policy required by choosing from the list an Investigative Specialist who did not present a clear conflict of interest. Absent clear language in the policy making cost-sharing, or independence, conditions precedent to arbitration, we decline to hold that the insured waived its right to arbitration by paying 100% of the Investigative Specialist's fee ( see Matter of United Nations Dev. Corp. v. Norkin Plumbing Co., 45 N.Y.2d 358, 362, 364, 365). The motion to renew was properly denied for failure to reasonably explain why the new evidence was not presented on the prior motion (CPLR 2221[e][3]). We have considered the excess insurer's other arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.