Order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The order appealed from must be affirmed for two reasons: (1) Leave to renew the motion was a condition precedent. No application for such relief was made. (2) The prior order fully determined the matter here litigated. (Sheehan v. Carvalho, 12 App. Div. 430; Haskell v. Moran, 117 id. 251; De Lacy v. Kelly, 147 id. 37; Civ. Prac. Act, § 1332;, Riggs v. Pursell, 74 N. Y. 370, 378; Matter of Livingston, 34 id. 555, 577; People ex rel. Hartford, L. Ins. Co. v. Fairman, 91 id. 385, 387; Belmont v. Erie R. Co., 52 Barb. 637; Veeder v. Baker, 83 N. Y. 156, 163; United States v. Louisville & Nash. R. R., 236 U. S. 318, 334; Matter of Durr v. Paragon Trading Corp., 270 N. Y. 464, 465; Matter of Steinway, 159 id. 250; People ex rel. Hasbrouck v. Supervisors, 135 id. 522, 535.) All concur. The order denies permission to relator to examine certain records of a corporation.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ. [See, also, 253 App. Div. 870; affd., 278 N. Y. 520.]