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

Last reviewed: June 2026

Key Takeaways

• CPLR § 2221(d) reargument is for matters the court overlooked or misapprehended — no new facts, 30-day deadline from service of the order with notice of entry; § 2221(e) renewal requires new facts (or a change in law) that would change the result, plus a reasonable justification for the omission, with no 30-day limit.
• A pending, unperfected appeal effectively extends the 30-day reargument window (Terio v Spodek, 2d Dept. 2009).
• A sua sponte order is not appealable as of right — the proper vehicle is a CPLR 2221(a) motion to vacate, made to the judge who signed it (Tangalin v MTA Long Is. Bus, 2d Dept. 2012).
• Renewal is “granted sparingly” and is not a second chance for parties who lacked diligence (Henry v Peguero, 1st Dept. 2010) — but courts routinely grant renewal to fix form defects where a reasonable justification is offered.
• No appeal lies from denial of reargument, or from an order vacated on reargument or renewal — and an order made upon reargument supersedes the original for appeal purposes.
• On a post-appeal renewal motion, the movant bears a “heavy burden” of showing due diligence in presenting the new evidence (Abrams v Berelson, 2d Dept. 2012).

What CPLR § 2221 Says

CPLR § 2221 governs every attempt to get a New York trial court to revisit its own order. It does three distinct jobs, and most of the traps in this area come from confusing them:

1. § 2221(a) — motions affecting a prior order. A motion to stay, vacate, or modify an order is made, on notice, to the judge who signed it. This subdivision is the workhorse for attacking sua sponte orders, which — because they do not decide a motion made on notice — are not appealable as of right.
2. § 2221(d) — leave to reargue. Reargument must be identified as such, must be based on matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court on the prior motion, may include no new facts, and must be made within 30 days after service of the order with written notice of entry.
3. § 2221(e) — leave to renew. Renewal must be identified as such, must be based on new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or a change in the law, and must contain a reasonable justification for the failure to present the facts earlier. Renewal carries no 30-day deadline.

Subdivision (f) requires a combined reargue/renew motion to identify and support each item of relief separately, with each part decided as if brought separately. Courts look past the caption to the substance — and the substance determines both the standard applied and whether the resulting order is appealable.

How Courts Apply It

CPLR 2221(a): The Remedy for Sua Sponte Orders — Tangalin

The decision that anchors this guide’s discussion of subdivision (a) is Tangalin v MTA Long Is. Bus, 2012 NY Slip Op 01239 (2d Dept. 2012):

“We agree with the appellants’ contention that the Supreme Court erroneously treated their motion to vacate so much of an order as directed them to produce certain portions of the Bus Operator Training Participant’s Guide of the defendant MTA Long Island Bus (hereinafter the Guide) as one for leave to reargue. Moreover, since that order was not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice, it was procedurally proper for the appellant to move pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to vacate the disputed portion of the order (see Mega Constr. Corp. v Benson Park Assoc., LLC, 60 AD3d 826, 827; Koczen v VMR Corp., 300 AD2d 285; Pagan v Penthouse Mfg. Co., 121 AD2d 374).”

Tangalin fills a real procedural gap. Interlocutory directives issued without a motion on notice — discovery rulings from a conference, case-management directives, sua sponte strikes — cannot be appealed as of right under CPLR 5701. The 2221(a) motion to vacate challenges the court’s authority or the procedure by which the order was made — analytically distinct from reargument, which challenges the court’s reasoning — and Tangalin holds that courts may not defeat the device by recharacterizing a vacatur motion as an untimely reargument motion.

The label matters in the other direction too. In Mount Sinai Hosp. v Dust Tr., Inc. (2d Dept. 2013), a self-insurer that had lost summary judgment moved — “denominated as one pursuant to CPLR 2221(a)” — to vacate the judgment based on policy exhaustion. The Second Department treated the motion as what it really was, a renewal motion resting on facts raised for the first time after judgment, and held that the failure to provide any reasonable justification for not raising the issue earlier “by itself requires denial.” Calling a renewal motion a 2221(a) motion does not excuse the renewal requirements.

CPLR 2221(d): Reargument and the 30-Day Clock

Reargument is for legal points the court overlooked or misapprehended — not for new evidence, and not for repackaging arguments already rejected. The hard edge is timing: 30 days from service of the order with notice of entry. But as we analyzed in our case note on the 30-day rule, Terio v Spodek (2d Dept. 2009) holds that where a notice of appeal has been filed and the appeal remains unperfected, the trial court providently entertains a reargument motion made beyond the 30-day limit. Filing the notice of appeal keeps the reargument door ajar.

CPLR 2221(e): Renewal Is “Granted Sparingly” — the Diligence Line

The renewal standard has two prongs — new facts that would change the determination, and reasonable justification for the earlier omission — and the second prong does most of the killing. In Henry v Peguero (1st Dept. 2010), a serious-injury threshold case, the plaintiff lost summary judgment on causation and sought renewal with an “addendum” affirmation from the same treating physician. The First Department reversed the grant of renewal: the addendum rested on information previously available, no reasonable excuse was offered, and “renewal is granted sparingly…; it is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation.”

The Second Department applies the same two-prong discipline. In Coccia v Liotti (2d Dept. 2010), the court split the renewal motion down the middle: renewal was proper to swap a defective affirmation for a properly notarized affidavit repeating the same assertions, but the genuinely new evidence had to be disregarded because the movant “failed to offer any justification for not having submitted it on the initial cross motion.” And in Flatbush Chiropractic, P.C. v American Tr. Ins. Co. (App. Term 2d Dept. 2017), renewal failed where the proffered “new facts” did not establish what they needed to establish — the new facts must actually change the prior determination.

The Form-Defect Line: Renewal to Fix Your Papers

Against the diligence cases sits a consistent, forgiving line of authority: renewal lies to correct papers that were substantively adequate but procedurally defective. In Schwelnus v Urological Assoc. of L.I., P.C. (2d Dept. 2012), the court held that “CPLR 2221(e) has not been construed so narrowly as to disqualify, as new facts not offered on the prior motion, facts contained in a document originally rejected for consideration because the document was not in admissible form.” The Appellate Term reached the same result in Ferrara v De Ming Song (App. Term 2d Dept. 2010), where a Florida doctor’s report — inadmissible because an out-of-state physician could not affirm under CPLR 2106 — could be resubmitted in admissible form on renewal.

The same grace extends to honest mistakes. In Provek Plus, Inc. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. (App. Term 2d Dept.), renewal should have been granted where a mail clerk’s affidavit contained an inadvertent typographical error about her employment start date. In Ashraf Ashour Physical Therapy, P.C. v Interboro (App. Term 1st Dept. 2012) — this office’s case — renewal was granted where law office failure caused the carrier to submit motion papers from a companion case; on renewal, the complaint was dismissed. And in Narvaez v Sammartino (1st Dept. 2017), renewal coupled with CPLR 2001 rescued opposition papers rejected for violating a part rule on submission format. The pattern: wrong form, wrong exhibit, wrong date — forgivable with a justification. Missing substance you always had — not forgivable.

Renewal Based on a Change in the Law

Subdivision (e) expressly covers “a change in the law that would change the prior determination.” In Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v Infinity Group (App. Term 2d Dept. 2015), the court vacated a consent order — which had put the burden on the insurer to prove fraudulent procurement at trial — because intervening appellate authority (Craigg and W.H.O. Acupuncture) had since held that an insurer rescinding under Pennsylvania law need only prove compliance with the sister state’s rescission procedures. Even stipulated dispositions are not immune when controlling authority shifts beneath them.

Post-Appeal Renewal: The “Heavy Burden”

Renewal sought after an appellate determination is a different animal. In Abrams v Berelson (2d Dept. 2012), a 3-2 decision, the plaintiffs located a long-missing witness twelve years after losing summary judgment. The court affirmed denial of renewal: search efforts made after the motion was decided could not constitute reasonable justification, and the plaintiffs — who waited six months after finding the witness — “failed to meet their ‘heavy burden’ of showing due diligence in presenting the new evidence” on a post-appeal motion. The Appellate Term’s Ocean Diagnostic decision, discussed in the same renewal case note as Coccia, is blunter still: a defendant who sits on curable proof while the appeal is decided against it on that very defect will not get renewal afterward. If you survive a motion on a form objection, move to renew immediately — do not wait out the appeal.

Appealability: The Consequences of Winning (or Losing) a 2221 Motion

Three rules govern what happens upstairs, and they drive strategy downstairs:

• No appeal lies from the denial of reargument. In City Dental Servs., P.C. v Country Wide Ins. Co. (App. Term 2d Dept. 2013), the appeal from the denial of “reargument” was dismissed outright. The same case shows a second trap: a party that defaulted on the underlying motion cannot “renew” its opposition — its remedy is a CPLR 5015(a)(1) motion to vacate the default.
• No appeal lies from a vacated order. As reiterated in Matter of State of New York v Richard TT. (2d Dept. 2015), once an order is vacated on reargument or renewal it ceases to exist for appellate purposes; you must await — and appeal from — the new determination.
• An order made upon reargument supersedes the original. In People v Johnson (4th Dept. 2012), the appellant noticed an appeal only from the original order; the court exercised CPLR 5520 discretion to treat the notice as taken from the superseding reargument order. Do not count on that mercy — file an amended notice of appeal.

Practice Pointers

• Label each branch and support it separately (§ 2221(f)). Mislabeling does not change the standard applied (Mount Sinai v Dust Tr.), but it can forfeit appealability: denial of reargument is unappealable, denial of renewal is appealable.
• Write the “reasonable justification” paragraph first. Most renewal motions die on prong two. Law office failure, an inadvertent form defect, or a typographical error will usually do; “we thought what we submitted was enough” will not (Henry v Peguero).
• Form defects are renewable — fix them fast. Improper affirmation, inadmissible transcript, out-of-state affirmant: move to renew with corrected papers immediately, especially if your adversary has appealed, because post-appeal renewal carries a heavy due-diligence burden (Abrams; Ocean Diagnostic).
• Attack sua sponte orders by 2221(a) motion, not by notice of appeal. They are not appealable as of right (Tangalin). Move promptly, before the judge who signed the order.
• After a default, the vehicle is CPLR 5015(a)(1) — not renewal of opposition you never submitted (City Dental).
• Protect the record on appeal. An order made on reargument supersedes the original — amend your notice of appeal (People v Johnson). If your adversary wins vacatur of an order you wanted to appeal, your appeal evaporates (Richard TT.).
• A filed, unperfected appeal keeps reargument (and change-in-law renewal) alive beyond the 30 days (Terio v Spodek). A protective notice of appeal is often the cheapest way to preserve every option.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a motion to reargue and a motion to renew under CPLR 2221?

Reargument (CPLR 2221(d)) asks the court to revisit matters of fact or law it overlooked or misapprehended — no new facts permitted, and the motion must be made within 30 days after service of the order with notice of entry. Renewal (CPLR 2221(e)) rests on new facts that would change the determination, or a change in the law, plus a reasonable justification for the earlier omission, and is not subject to the 30-day deadline.

Is the 30-day deadline to move to reargue ever extended?

Yes. Where a notice of appeal has been filed and the appeal remains unperfected, courts have discretion to entertain a reargument motion made beyond the 30-day limit (Terio v Spodek, 2d Dept. 2009). Without a pending appeal, a late reargument motion is generally untimely.

How do I challenge a sua sponte order that cannot be appealed?

Move pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to vacate the order, on notice, before the judge who signed it. Because a sua sponte order does not decide a motion made on notice, it is not appealable as of right; the 2221(a) vacatur motion is the procedurally proper vehicle (Tangalin v MTA Long Is. Bus, 2d Dept. 2012).

Can I appeal if the court denies my motion to reargue?

No — no appeal lies from an order denying reargument. The denial of a properly made motion to renew, by contrast, is appealable. This asymmetry is one more reason to support each branch of a combined motion separately under CPLR 2221(f).

Counsel-to-Counsel: Referrals and Co-Counsel

If you are litigating a CPLR § 2221 issue — a renewal motion that needs a bulletproof “reasonable justification,” a reargument/appeal sequencing problem, or a sua sponte order that needs to be unwound — and want a second set of eyes, or want to hand the motion or appeal to someone who briefs these issues every week, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. works with referring attorneys across New York: per-diem motion practice, appellate briefing and argument (1,000+ appeals), and co-counsel arrangements on no-fault, personal injury, and insurance coverage litigation. Referring counsel stay involved to the degree they want. Call (516) 750-0595 or use the contact form — attorney inquiries answered same day.

Related Reading

• Motion to Reargue: Understanding the 30-Day Rule in New York Civil Procedure
• Renewal Under Certain Circumstances May Be Granted to Correct an Improper Affirmation (CPLR 2106 guide)
• Amended motion? Leave of court and withdrawing pending motions
• The search for the mystical Torres, and the hunt to obtain post-appellate renewal
• When EUO counsel is not an attorney: renewal of a discovery motion under 2221(e)
• Legal Encyclopedia
• No-Fault Defense practice page