CPLR § 2221 Motions to Reargue, Renew, and Vacate: The New York Practitioner's Guide

Last reviewed: September 2026

What CPLR § 2221 Says

Start with the earlier order. Reargument asks the court to reconsider material already presented; renewal asks it to consider a qualifying addition. Tangalin, the 2012 case behind this article, involved a different problem: a discovery order made without a motion on notice.

CPLR 2221 distinguishes:

• Reargument under subdivision (d): identify the request and the previously presented fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended. No new facts. The statutory period is 30 days after service of the order with written notice of entry.
• Renewal under subdivision (e): identify new facts that would change the determination, or a change in law that would do so. Explain reasonably why the facts were not presented earlier. This subdivision does not impose the reargument provision’s 30-day period.
• A motion affecting a prior order under subdivision (a): generally address the judge who signed it. The statute contains exceptions, including orders made on default or without notice.

A combined motion must support its renewal and reargument branches separately. Calling a request “vacatur” does not resolve which requirements govern it.

Still current (September 2026): Joyous JD Ltd v Yolanda Mgt., 247 AD3d 536 (1st Dept 2026), confirms that correcting a document’s form does not dispense with reasonable justification for its earlier omission.

What Tangalin actually decided

This February 2012 article began with Tangalin v MTA Long Is. Bus, 92 AD3d 766 (2d Dept 2012). The dispute concerned an order directing production of parts of a bus-operator training guide.

The order had not decided a motion made on notice. The appellate court held that moving to vacate the disputed portion under CPLR 2221(a) was procedurally proper; the lower court had incorrectly treated that request as reargument.

The result also depended on relevance. The court vacated the production directive except for the railroad-crossing portions. Because the driver was admittedly acting within the scope of his employment, the training and retention sections were not relevant to the plaintiff’s case. Relevance had not been shown for the other disputed sections. Tangalin does not make all transit manuals immune from discovery.

CPLR 5701 separately governs appeals to the Appellate Division from Supreme and County Courts. It addresses orders made on notice and also provides for appeals by permission. “Not appealable as of right” does not mean that permission is impossible.

Latest developments

A pending appeal does not guarantee late reargument

6901 LLC v Caputo, 2025 NY Slip Op 04529 (2d Dept 2025), upheld the court’s consideration of a late reargument motion while the earlier appeal remained pending and unperfected. It cites Terio v Spodek, the decision discussed in the archive below.

Do not read that result as an automatic extension obtained by filing a notice of appeal. The court exercised its discretion. Caputo also treated the challenged order as granting reargument and adhering to the prior ruling because the court had actually reviewed the arguments.

Corrected papers can still fail on renewal

In Joyous, the party supplied translations and a translator’s affidavit after the original foreign-language documents failed CPLR 2101(b). The corrected papers did not save the application. Describing the omission as inadvertent or mistaken did not provide reasonable justification, and denial of renewal was affirmed.

Tapia v Van Rossum, 248 AD3d 1153 (2d Dept 2026), likewise affirmed denial where the party had not reasonably explained the failure to supply the additional evidence earlier. The fact that a court has discretion to consider previously known material does not remove the need to justify the omission.

For affirmation form, use current CPLR 2106. It permits qualifying affirmations by any person, subject to its form requirements and express exceptions. Older cases discussing which professions or out-of-state witnesses could affirm describe an earlier statute.

Reading the older renewal cases

Correcting the document leaves another question: why was the proper submission missing in the first place? The archive includes cases permitting corrected affirmations, an employment-date correction, and replacement of papers taken from a companion case. Their outcomes turn on their records. They do not establish that law-office failure will usually suffice.

Dookhie v Woo, 180 AD3d 459 (1st Dept 2020), illustrates a different reason for renewal. The defendants first disputed a treatment issue in reply. Renewal allowed the plaintiff to answer that newly raised contention. The decision does not authorize a movant to withhold evidence and later introduce it through renewal.

The post-appeal note on Abrams concerns diligence after a missing witness was located. Read that history separately from ordinary reargument timing. The absence of a 30-day renewal provision does not establish an unlimited right to reopen a completed case.

Before preparing the application

Read the actual order and the papers it decided. Identify service with written notice of entry, any pending appeal, and what relief the order granted. Preserve the original and proposed corrected documents so their differences can be checked.

An explanation of the omission should say what happened. Calling it inadvertent adds little by itself. For reargument, identify the overlooked material in the existing record. Check appellate rights separately; do not assume that asking the motion court to reconsider protects an appeal deadline.

Finally, distinguish denial of leave to reargue from an order granting reargument and adhering to the original decision. In Caputo, the court’s actual reconsideration of the arguments made that distinction decisive.

Related procedural records

The archive also follows these issues through other subjects:

• Mount Sinai’s policy-exhaustion motion was labeled a CPLR 2221(a) request but presented new facts. The 2013 decision applied renewal requirements and found no reasonable justification for the omission.
• The Flatbush workers’ compensation note addresses a different failure: the offered evidence would not change the earlier determination. The 2017 opinion explains why a database search did not establish the necessary application to the Board.
• Narvaez and rejected opposition papers concerns counsel’s failure to follow a part rule. The 2017 decision upheld discretionary relief under CPLR 2001, noting the absence of significant prejudice and an order reimbursing resulting costs.
• Delta Diagnostic’s Pennsylvania-law dispute is not an ordinary renewal victory. The 2015 opinion expressly treated the application as vacatur of a consent order, using inherent discretion in a still-pending case. It does not establish that every intervening legal change reopens a consent disposition.
• City Dental’s default problem required a request to vacate the default rather than renewal of opposition never accepted. The 2013 opinion also notes that the separate vacatur branch remained undecided.
• The vacated-order appeal in Richard TT. was dismissed by the Third Department in 2015. The Johnson notice-of-appeal note concerns a separate, criminal proceeding in which the Fourth Department exercised CPLR 5520(c) discretion. Neither outcome is a promise to repair a defective appeal.
• Before the original motion is decided, the Woodward amended-motion note addresses seeking leave to withdraw or amend defective papers. The 2011 opinion upheld refusal to entertain the unexplained amended motion.
• Venture’s attorney-investigator dispute reached renewal after further discovery. The 2017 opinion remanded for findings about counsel’s role; it did not itself resolve disqualification or order blanket disclosure.

Cases in this topic

This directory links 12 related archive notes; this overview brings the cohort to 13. Dates are publication dates. The notes preserve discussion written at the time, and some older explanations need correction. Use the current authorities above alongside them.

Reargument, timing and appealability

These notes address what the court reconsidered and how the resulting order reached the appellate court. The Terio entry should be read with Caputo above: late reargument was entertained as an exercise of discretion.

• Budoff: reconsidering the merits and adhering to the result — 2018-08-23
• Cuomo v Ferran: reargument in a Medicaid-recovery action — 2010-10-17
• Terio: late reargument while an appeal was pending — 2009-06-07

Renewal: the missing evidence and its explanation

Read the explanation for the missing proof, not just the document submitted later. In Dookhie, the opposing party first raised the disputed argument in reply; the decision does not endorse deliberately holding back evidence.

• Dookhie: answering an opponent’s new reply argument — 2020-02-12
• Abrams: diligence on a post-appeal renewal motion — 2012-04-16
• Henry: previously available causation evidence — 2010-05-01

Corrected papers and calendar errors

These are different procedural records, not a promise that every filing error can be cured. Older affirmation restrictions must be read with current CPLR 2106 and the Joyous decision above.

• Provek: explaining an employment-date error — 2016-06-11
• DeMarquez: renewal after a calendar error — 2012-04-25
• Schwelnus: renewal after a document was rejected for its form — 2012-04-25
• Ashraf Ashour: correcting papers submitted from a companion case — 2012-03-20
• Ferrara: correcting a report under the 2010 affirmation rules — 2010-08-19
• Coccia: corrected form versus additional facts — 2010-02-10

Connect to the Encyclopedia

• Legal Encyclopedia: topics and archive navigation
• Terio: the pending-appeal setting for late reargument
• Arkin: a discretionary correction of affirmation form
• Coccia: separating corrected form from additional proof
• Dookhie: renewal to answer an opponent’s reply argument
• Abrams: the post-appeal diligence problem
• Budoff: reargument granted with the original result unchanged

Counsel-to-counsel inquiries

For a referral or an inquiry about motion or appellate work, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum. For insurance matters, see the no-fault defense practice. Have the order and its service history available when discussing deadlines.