Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by deeming his motion for reargument and renewal as, in actuality, a motion for reargument. Although the requirement that a motion for renewal be based upon newly-discovered facts is a flexible one (see, Citibank v. Olson, 204 A.D.2d 381; Karlin v. Bridges, 172 A.D.2d 644), where, as here, the party seeking renewal fails to offer a valid excuse as to why the allegedly new facts were not previously submitted, the motion is considered as one for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable (see, DeSola v Mads, Inc., 213 A.D.2d 445; Wavecrest Apts. Corp. v. Jarmain, 183 A.D.2d 711; Chiarella v. Quitoni, 178 A.D.2d 582). Moreover, we note that no appeal lies from the underlying order denying resettlement of the decretal paragraphs of a prior order (see, C.B. Foods v. Quarex Co., 204 A.D.2d 504; Chase v. Willis, 199 A.D.2d 455; Blume v. Blume, 124 A.D.2d 771). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.