We agree with the IAS court that defendant failed to make a sufficient showing of fraud, collusion, mistake or material misrepresentation by plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel to relieve it of the stipulations in which it waived the defense of the Statute of Limitations (Hallock v State of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230; Matter of Frutiger, 29 N.Y.2d 143, 149). In any event, neither unilateral mistake nor fraudulent misrepresentation by plaintiff's counsel provide grounds for rescission of the stipulations, since defendant in executing the stipulations, could not have justifiably relied on the legal opinion or conclusion of its adversary's counsel that the action had been timely commenced (Verschell v Pike, 85 A.D.2d 690, 691).
Finally, denial of defendant's renewal motion was not an abuse of discretion as the motion was not supported by new facts or information that could not have been, with due diligence, readily made part of the original motion. Defendant failed to offer a valid excuse for not having submitted the additional facts on the original motion and the new argument sought to be raised in support of the motion provided an insufficient basis for renewal (see, Matter of Beiny, 132 A.D.2d 190, 210, lv dismissed 71 N.Y.2d 994). We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Smith, JJ.