Casey, J.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the prior application for recusal was based upon additional facts which petitioner could not have discovered until after the initial application for recusal. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration was a motion for renewal and the order denying that motion is appealable ( see, Seifts v. Markle, 211 A.D.2d 848).
Based upon the parties' insistence that the recent Court of Appeals decision in the companion case of Matter of Stortecky v Mazzone ( 85 N.Y.2d 518) does not affect this appeal, the only issue to be decided is whether the Surrogate abused his discretion in refusing to recuse himself. Considering the record as a whole, including the statements made by the Surrogate in support of the motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals in Matter of Stortecky v. Mazzone ( supra), we are of the view that the Surrogate's impartiality has been called into question ( see, 22 NYCRR 100.3 [c] [1]) and recusal is appropriate to avoid even the appearance of impropriety ( see, Matter of Murphy, 82 N.Y.2d 491, 495).
Cardona, P.J., Mikoll, Mercure and Peters, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order entered August 11, 1994 is reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, motion to renew granted and, upon renewal, motion to recuse granted. Ordered that the appeal from order entered June 17, 1994 is dismissed, as academic.