Opinion
January 7, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.).
While plaintiffs contend that their motion was one for renewal, the denial of which is appealable, no new matters or issues were presented to the court for review. Nor was there any need for clarification with respect to the negligent misrepresentation causes of action, given that plaintiffs had indicated that those causes of action would be withdrawn pursuant to a prior order that had already dismissed them. Thus, the motion for "clarification" was really one for reargument, which was how the IAS Court, in effect, treated it. In any event, were we to address the merits of the order on appeal and the order of February 22, 1991, we would affirm, since plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requirements of CPLR 3016 (b) (see, Credit Alliance Corp. v. Andersen Co., 65 N.Y.2d 536).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.