Article 22. Stay, Motions, Orders and Mandates · Last amended 1999 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 2221 requires a motion to reargue, renew, or attack a prior order to go to the judge who signed it, with exceptions for default and ex parte orders, and defines what a motion to reargue or renew requires and how long a party has to bring it.
(a)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.
(b)Rules of the chief administrator of the courts. The chief administrator may by rule exclude motions within a department, district or county from the operation of subdivision (a) of this rule.
(c)A motion made to other than a proper judge under this rule shall be transferred to the proper judge.
(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.
(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.
(f)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. 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.
Plain-English Summary
When a party wants a second look at an order, CPLR 2221 controls both who hears the request and what the request has to show. As a general rule, a motion for leave to renew or reargue, or to stay, vacate, or modify an order, goes to the judge who signed it, since that judge is best positioned to evaluate whether a second look is warranted. Two exceptions loosen that rule: an order made on a party's default can be brought before any judge of the court, and a motion attacking an order made without notice can go, without notice, to the judge who signed it, or, on notice, to any other judge.
Subdivisions (d) and (e) draw the line between reargument and renewal that courts had struggled with for years under case law alone. A motion to reargue has to say so explicitly, rest only on facts or law the court is claimed to have overlooked or misunderstood on the prior motion, not introduce new facts, and be made within thirty days of service of the order with notice of entry. A motion to renew, by contrast, has to be based on new facts that weren't offered before, or a change in the law, that would change the outcome, and it has to justify why those facts weren't presented the first time around.
A party can combine both kinds of motion, but subdivision (f) requires each branch to be identified and supported separately, and the court has to decide each branch as though it had been made on its own. Granting either kind of motion doesn't require the court to change its mind; it can reargue or renew and still adhere to the original result.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which judge do I bring a motion to reargue or renew before in New York?
The judge who signed the original order, under CPLR 2221(a), unless the order was made on a default (any judge) or without notice (that judge without notice, or another judge on notice).
What's the deadline to move for reargument in New York?
Thirty days after service of a copy of the order with written notice of its entry, under CPLR 2221(d). That deadline doesn't apply to motions to reargue a decision of the Appellate Division or the Court of Appeals.
What's the difference between a motion to renew and a motion to reargue in New York?
A motion to reargue points to facts or law the court overlooked or misunderstood, using only what was already on the record; a motion to renew introduces new facts, or points to a change in the law, and has to explain why those facts weren't offered before, under CPLR 2221(d) and (e).
Can I combine a motion to reargue and a motion to renew in one filing?
Yes, but CPLR 2221(f) requires you to identify and support each branch separately, and the court decides each branch as if it had been made on its own.
If the court grants my motion to reargue, does it have to change its ruling?
No. CPLR 2221(f) allows the court, after granting leave to reargue or renew, to adhere to its original determination or to alter it.
What happens if a motion to vacate or modify an order is brought to the wrong judge?
CPLR 2221(c) requires it to be transferred to the proper judge rather than decided by the judge it was mistakenly brought before.
Advisory Committee Notes
Matters such as resettlement, amendment, vacation and modification of orders were formerly governed by case law (see 1 Carmody-Wait, Cyclopedia of New York Practice 717–726 (1952) except for the provisions of CPA §§ 131 and 132).
CPA § 132, authorizing the Appellate Division, an appellate term, or a justice thereof to vacate ex parte Supreme Court orders, originally appeared in § 1348 of the Throop Code, together with the forerunner of CPA § 66, which allows the Appellate Division to grant ex parte orders refused by the Supreme Court.
CPA § 131 applies only to orders made out of court and without notice, since the word “such” refers to order specified in subd 2 of § 130. These provisions appeared consecutively in § 772 of the Throop Code. The purpose of § 131 is apparently to allow a greater latitude in making motions to vacate ex parte orders, since such orders cannot be appealed and vacatur is the only remedy. The notice requirement applies only if the motion to vacate is made to the court, in which case a judge other than the one who made the order may hear the motion.
The substance of CPA § 131 is retained by subparagraph 2 of the new rule. For the sake of completeness, the new rule states the general case law doctrine that all motions to vacate or modify must be heard by the judge who made the order or presided at the term where it was made. See, e.g., Platt v New York & Sea Beach Ry. 170 NY 451, 63 NE 532 (1902); 1 Carmody-Wait, Cyclopedia of New York Practice 719 (1952). “By a long-continued course of practice, recognized and enforced by the courts, it is settled as a rule of law that one judge should not vacate an order made by a court held by another judge except in cases expressly provided for . . . .” Willard v Willard, 194 App Div 123, 125, 185 NY Supp 569, 571 (2d Dept 1920). This doctrine is sometimes overlooked in exceptional cases, such as “[w]here new elements, like fraud or collusion, are shown and it is not possible to send the matter to the judge who made the original order.” Ibid. The new rule is not intended to inhibit the courts in such exceptional cases.
Subparagraph 1 of the new rule expressly covers the exception for orders made upon a default which is made by the decisions. See 1 Carmody-Wait, Cyclopedia of New York Practice 720 (1952).
Another exception relates to orders made without jurisdiction, but these are not covered by the rule; such orders may not only be set aside by any judge but may be attacked collaterally or disregarded entirely, since they are void. See ibid; see also Kamp v Kamp, 59 NY 212 (1874).
The provison in CPA § 131, that an order granting a provisional remedy may be vacated only in the mode specially prescribed by law, is unnecessary. Throughout the new CPLR such specific provisions govern general ones.
The Committee, in response to a suggestion from the Suffolk County Bar Association, recommends the amendment of CPLR 2221 and 5701(a)(2) to clarify confusing provisions of law governing motions addressed to prior orders.
Currently, the law governing motions to reargue and renew is based primarily on court decisions, which address the area piecemeal and do not provide a coherent structure for the treatment of these motions. There is much confusion among bench and bar as to the nature of these motions, their purpose, when they are appropriate and when appeals can be taken. The Committee recommends that the CPLR contain provisions to govern these motions that will distinguish clearly between motions for leave to reargue and leave to renew, and that will specify time limitations for the making of these motions and rights of appeal. See also, Pahl Equipment Corp. v. Kassis 182 A.D.2d 22 (1st Dept. 1992); Schneider v. Solowey, 141 A.D.2d 813 (2d Dept. 1988) This measure would implement its recommendation.
Previously, the Committee’s recommendations included changes to CPLR 2221 requiring motions to renew and to reargue to be assigned to the judge who determined the prior order. Various groups expressed their concern that such language might conflict with judicial assignment practices around the state.
This year the Advisory Committee has decided to eliminate any change in the current language of Rule 2221 relating to the judge to whom such motions are made. This modified proposal sets forth only the parameters of motions to reargue and renew in the trial court context, what they are, when they are appropriate, and the proper time frames for their use. Last year’s proposal has also been amended to make the bill effective immediately upon its passage.
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308, § 1; amd, L 1986, ch 355, § 5; L 1999, ch 281, § 1, eff July 20, 1999.
Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory
Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
Last verified July 21, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:motion to reargue vs renew New YorkCPLR 2221 thirty day deadline reargumentwhich judge hears motion to renew New YorkNew York motion to vacate prior orderCPLR combined reargue renew motion