Opinion
November 24, 1997
Appeal from the Court of Claims (Mega, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion which was characterized as one for renewal and reargument of the defendant's prior motion to dismiss the claim is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The claimant's motion, characterized as one for renewal and reargument of the defendant's prior motion to dismiss the claim, was, in actuality, a motion for reargument since it was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time the claimant submitted his original opposition to the motion to dismiss ( see, Wodecki v. Carty, 167 A.D.2d 398). No appeal lies from an order denying a motion for reargument ( see, Mucciola v. City of New York, 177 A.D.2d 553).
We agree with the Court of Claims that the claimant has not met any of the criteria set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6). Therefore, his alternative request for leave to serve a late claim was properly denied.
Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.