Opinion
1307
June 6, 2002.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered June 1, 2001, which denied plaintiff's motion to renew or reargue an order, same court (Franklin Weissberg, J.), entered December 21, 2000, upon the parties' motions for summary judgment, declaring that certain cooperative apartments are subject to rent control and will remain so until vacancies occur therein, unanimously dismissed, without costs.
GALE FIELDMAN, for Plaintiff-appellant.
KATHLEEN ALBERTON DAVID LAWRENCE III, for Defendants-respondents.
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin, Wallach, JJ.
The appeal must be dismissed since orders denying reargument are not appealable (see, Cross v. Cross, 112 A.D.2d 62, 64). Although the motion was denominated by plaintiff as one "to renew and/or reargue", it was one only to reargue, since no new facts were alleged (see, CPLR 2221[e][2]), and only an error of law urged in the retroactive application of RPTL 489 (7) (b) (2) (see, CPLR 2221[d][2]). In any event, in view ofMatter of Bleecker St. Mgt. Co. v. DHCR ( 284 A.D.2d 174, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 606), decided by this Court after the denial of plaintiff's motion to reargue, plaintiff's appellate claims lack merit.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.