CHELSEA PIERS MGT. v. FOREST ELECTRIC

IINA's motion for renewal was properly denied since the evidentiary matter upon which it was premised, a mere restatement in affidavit form of information supplied to plaintiffs by IINA at the time IINA rejected their insurance claim, was available to IINA at the time of the original motion and no viable excuse has been submitted for the failure to submit it at that time. Renewal is not available as a "second chance" for parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation (see, Rubinstein v. Goldman, 225 A.D.2d 328, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 815).