Reargue or renew in New York: two different motions, one of which has a deadline
New York procedure · Last verified August 17, 2026
New York gives you two ways to ask a judge to revisit an order, and people routinely file the wrong one. They are not variations on a theme. Reargument says the court got it wrong on the record it had. Renewal says the record has changed.
One of them expires in thirty days. The other does not.
Reargument: no new facts, thirty days
CPLR 2221(d):
A motion for leave to reargue:
1. shall be identified specifically as such; 2. shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion; and 3. shall be made within thirty days after service of a copy of the order determining the prior motion and written notice of its entry. This rule shall not apply to motions to reargue a decision made by the appellate division or the court of appeals.
Three requirements, each of which disposes of a common mistake.
It must say it is a motion to reargue. Paragraph 1 is not a formality — the label determines which standard the court applies.
No new facts at all. The motion is confined to what the court already had. If your best material was not in the original papers, reargument is the wrong vehicle.
Thirty days, and the clock starts on service of a copy of the order with written notice of its entry — not on the decision, not on entry itself. Until someone serves notice of entry, the thirty days have not begun. That is the single most misunderstood part of the rule, and it cuts both ways: if you want to close the window on your opponent, serve notice of entry.
Renewal: new facts, no deadline in the rule
CPLR 2221(e):
A motion for leave to renew:
1. shall be identified specifically as such; 2. 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; and 3. shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion.
Note what is not in subdivision (e): any time limit. The rule sets none.
But renewal has its own gate, and it is paragraph 3. New facts are not enough — you must explain why they were not offered the first time, and the rule calls that a "reasonable justification." A renewal motion that presents excellent new evidence and says nothing about why it is late is incomplete on the face of the rule.
Also note the second route in paragraph 2: renewal is available on a change in the law that would change the prior determination, not only on new facts.
| Reargue — CPLR 2221(d) | Renew — CPLR 2221(e) | |
|---|---|---|
| Basis | facts or law overlooked or misapprehended | new facts, or a change in the law |
| New facts allowed | no — expressly prohibited | required |
| Must justify the lateness of the facts | — | yes, reasonable justification |
| Deadline | 30 days after service of the order with notice of entry | none stated in the rule |
| Must be labeled as such | yes | yes |
Filing both
CPLR 2221(f) permits a combined motion and then tells the court to pull it apart again:
A combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew shall identify separately and support separately each item of relief sought. The court, in determining a combined motion for leave to reargue and leave to renew, shall decide each part of the motion as if it were separately made.
So a combined motion is really two motions in one document, and it has to read that way — separate identification, separate support. Blending the arguments defeats the point, because the court must decide each half on its own standard and the reargument half may not rely on the new facts.
The same subdivision sets out what happens when you win the leave question:
If a motion for leave to reargue or leave to renew is granted, the court may adhere to the determination on the original motion or may alter that determination.
Granting leave is not the same as winning. The court may reconsider and reach exactly the same result.
Which judge hears it
CPLR 2221(a) sends it back to the judge who made the order:
A motion for leave to renew or to reargue a prior motion, for leave to appeal from, or to stay, vacate or modify, an order shall be made, on notice, to the judge who signed the order, unless he or she is for any reason unable to hear it, except that:
1. if the order was made upon a default such motion may be made, on notice, to any judge of the court; and
2. if the order was made without notice such motion may be made, without notice, to the judge who signed it, or, on notice, to any other judge of the court.
Two exceptions worth remembering: an order made on default and an order made without notice can both go to a different judge.
Getting it wrong is not fatal — (c): "A motion made to other than a proper judge under this rule shall be transferred to the proper judge." And (b) allows the chief administrator to exclude motions in a given department, district or county from subdivision (a) by rule, so local practice can displace the default.
The appellate carve-out
The last sentence of (d) is easy to miss: "This rule shall not apply to motions to reargue a decision made by the appellate division or the court of appeals." Reargument in the appellate courts runs on their own rules, not on CPLR 2221.
How New York compares
| New York | New Jersey | Michigan | Federal | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reconsideration split into two motions | yes — reargue and renew | one motion | one motion | one motion |
| Deadline to reargue | 30 days from notice of entry | 20 days | 21 days | 28 days (Rule 59(e)) |
| Deadline to renew | none in the rule | — | — | — |
| New facts permitted | only on renewal | limited | limited | limited |
| Must explain why the facts are late | yes, on renewal | — | — | — |
| Goes back to the same judge | yes, with exceptions | yes | yes | yes |
A short checklist
- Work out which motion you actually have. Overlooked or misapprehended material on the existing record means reargue; anything new means renew.
- Label it. Both subdivisions require the motion to be identified specifically as what it is.
- For reargument, find the date notice of entry was served — not the decision date — and count thirty days from it.
- Keep new facts out of the reargument half. CPLR 2221(d)(2) prohibits them outright.
- For renewal, write the justification paragraph. New facts without an explanation for their absence do not satisfy (e)(3).
- Consider whether the law changed. That is an independent basis for renewal.
- If you file both, support them separately. The court decides each as if separately made.
- Send it to the judge who signed the order, unless the order was on default or made without notice.
- If you are on the winning side, serve notice of entry — that is what starts your opponent's thirty days running.
Where these rules live
- CPLR 2221 — Motion affecting prior order
- CPLR 2211 — Motion; what constitutes; when made
- CPLR 2214 — Motion papers; service; time
- CPLR 5015 — Relief from judgment or order
- CPLR 5513 — Time to take appeal, cross-appeal or move for permission to appeal
This page explains what the statute says. It isn't legal advice, and what counts as a reasonable justification under CPLR 2221(e)(3) is developed in case law this site doesn't cover.