The motion court properly considered parol evidence in finding that defendant had raised a triable issue as to whether the instruments were part of a "sham" transaction in which they were never intended to operate as promissory notes at all ( Bernstein v Kritzer, 253 NY 410, 416). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, there is no evidence here of any scheme in contravention of public policy that should preclude application of the foregoing exception to the parol evidence rule ( cf., Bersani v General Ace. Fire Life Assur. Corp., 36 NY2d 457, 460-461; Greenleaf v Lachman, 216 AD2d 65, 66, lv denied 88 NY2d 802). Renewal was properly denied for failure to proffer any excuse for not having submitted the new evidence on the original motion ( see, e.g., Leonard Fuchs, Inc. v Laser Processing Corp., 222 AD2d 280).