The following numbered papers were read on this motion: NYSCEF Doc No. 149: Notice of Motion, submitted by Plaintiff NYSCEF Doc No. 150: Affirmation of Andrew Muchmore, submitted by Plaintiff NYSCEF Doc No. 151: Email, submitted by Plaintiff NYSCEF Doc No. 152: Order of February 22, 2023, entered February 27, 2023, submitted by Plaintiff NYSCEF Doc No. 154: Affirmation of Kenneth E. Belkin, submitted by Defendants NYSCEF Doc No. 155: Reply Affirmation of Andrew Muchmore, submitted by Defendants DECISION AND ORDER U pon the foregoing papers and having heard oral argument on the record, the within motion is determined as follows. Background Plaintiff Brick&Mortar LLC is a real estate brokerage firm. On or about June 14, 2019, Plaintiff entered into an exclusive brokerage agreement with Defendant, Momo Sushi Inc., a restaurant, to sell a leasehold for an unused portion of their restaurant and business premises. The parties agreed that Defendant was to pay Plaintiff a 10 percent commission of any gross amount upon the execution of any sale, sub-lease, or assignment agreement between Defendant and a purchaser. In December of 2019, the parties disagreed as to whether a sale was ultimately made. Plaintiff commenced an action in this Court arguing that Defendant made an undisclosed sale of an ownership interest in the restaurant to one of its directors, for which Plaintiff should have been entitled to a commission. Defendant vehemently disagreed. On August 26, 2022, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment and on February 22, 2023, this Court conducted a motion proceeding. Plaintiff, however, failed to appear; Defendant Momo Sushi Inc. appeared. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied on the merits as follows: Upon the foregoing papers, and having heard oral argument and a decision having been rendered on the record in open court, It is hereby ORDERED that the within motion is determined as follows: Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied. (Motion Seq. 4) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied. (Motion Seq. 5) (NYSCEF Doc No. 152, Order of February 22, 2023 [emphasis added].) Plaintiff now moves for an order granting leave to renew and reargue their prior motion. (See generally NYSCEF Doc No. 150, Affirmation of Andrew Muchmore; NYSCEF Doc No. 154, Affirmation of Kenneth E. Belkin; NYSCEF Doc No. 155, Reply Affirmation of Andrew Muchmore.) Plaintiff alleges confusion or misunderstanding resulting from the departure of one of Plaintiff’s attorneys, along with the reassignment of the case to a new judge as justification for the failure to appear. Discussion A successful motion to renew requires the movant to provide new or additional evidence that was not present in the original motion, as well as justifiable proof as to why that evidence was not presented in the original motion (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; Matter of Anthony J. Carter, DDS, P.C. v. Carter, 81 AD3d 819 [2d Dept 2011]). A successful motion to reargue on the other hand requires proof that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law, or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision (see CPLR 2221 [d] [2]; Ito v. 324 E. 9th St. Corp., 49 AD3d 816 [2d Dept 2008]. Plaintiff moves to both reargue and renew; however, this action is, in effect, solely a motion to reargue because Plaintiff failed to allege any new or additional evidence as required for a motion to renew. Indeed, Plaintiff itself admits that “to the extent the [prior] determination was on the merits, Plaintiff seeks reargument only and requests that oral argument be rescheduled…based on the documentary evidence and written admission previously submitted by the Plaintiff” ([NYSCEF Doc No. 150, Affirmation of Andrew Muchmore
