Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The defendant contends that an insurance policy it issued to the plaintiff was void due to misrepresentations and false statements made by the plaintiff on the insurance application and at her examination under oath, respectively. However, with regard to the insurance application, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that, as a matter of law, the misinformation was material ( see, Sonkin Assocs. v. Columbian Mut. Life Ins. Co., 150 A.D.2d 764, 765; Ferris v. Columbian Mut. Ins. Co., 190 A.D.2d 1061, 1063; Wittner v. IDS Ins. Co., 96 A.D.2d 1053; Insurance Law § 3105 [b]). With regard to the plaintiff's false statements made at her examination under oath, the defendant has failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff intended to deceive or defraud it when she made the statements ( see, Deitsch Textiles v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 62 N.Y.2d 999, 1001; Jonari Mgt. Corp. v. St. Paul Fire Mar. Ins. Co., 58 N.Y.2d 408, 417; Fine v. Bellefonte Underwriters Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 50 [2d Cir 1985], cert denied 474 U.S. 826).
The court also properly denied the defendant's motion, in effect, to renew, as the additional evidence was neither newly discovered nor unavailable to the defendant at the time of the prior motion ( see generally, Cannistra v. Gibbons, 224 A.D.2d 570, 571; Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568).
Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.