DECISION & ORDER
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Isaac Shouela appeals from an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Noach Dear, J.), dated January 30, 2019. The order and judgment of foreclosure and sale, upon an order of the same court (Peter P. Sweeney, J.) dated October 29, 2018, inter alia, denying that branch of that defendants cross motion which was for leave to renew his opposition to those branches of the plaintiffs prior motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against him and for an order of reference, which had been granted in orders of the same court (Peter P. Sweeney, J.) dated October 28, 2016, and November 27, 2017, granted the plaintiffs motion to confirm the referees report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, confirmed the referees report, and directed the sale of the subject property.
ORDERED that the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage on property located in Brooklyn against, among others, the defendant Isaac Shouela (hereinafter the defendant). The plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant and for an order of reference. The Supreme Court, among other things, granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion in orders dated October 28, 2016, and November 27, 2017.
Subsequently, the plaintiff moved to confirm the referees report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The defendant cross-moved, inter alia, for leave to renew his opposition to those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against him and for an order of reference. In an order dated October 29, 2018, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied that branch of the defendants cross motion. In an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale dated January 30, 2019, the court granted the plaintiffs motion to confirm the referees report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, confirmed the referees report, and directed the sale of the subject property. The defendant appeals.
A motion for leave to renew “shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221[e][2]).
Contrary to the defendants contention, he did not show that there had been a change in the law (see Cenlar, FSB v. Weisz, 136 A.D.3d 855, 856, 25 N.Y.S.3d 308; Lindsay v. Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano LLP, 129 A.D.3d 790, 793, 12 N.Y.S.3d 124; Nocella v. Fort Dearborn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 99 A.D.3d 877, 955 N.Y.S.2d 70), so as to warrant renewal of his opposition to those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against him and for an order of reference (see American Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc. v. Carnegie, 181 A.D.3d 632, 633, 121 N.Y.S.3d 148). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants cross motion which was for leave to renew.
The defendants remaining contention is not properly before this Court, as it is improperly raised for the first time on appeal.
IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, DOWLING and WAN, JJ., concur.