Opinion
Argued June 6, 2000
August 15, 2000.
In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103 to discover property withheld from the estate of the decedent, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Surrogate's Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated August 31, 1999, which denied her motion, in effect, for reargument.
Schwartz, Weiss, Steckler, Hoffman Hade, P.C., et al., respondents.
Stroock Stroock Lavan, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Kevin L. Smith and Deborah L. Goldstein of counsel), for appellant.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements
The petitioner's motion, characterized as one for renewal and reargument, was in actuality a motion only for reargument because it was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time of the original motion (see, Daly v. Messina, 267 A.D.2d 345; DeMeo v. County of Suffolk, 262 A.D.2d 270; Lupoli v. Venus Laboratories, Inc., 264 A.D.2d 820). Accordingly, the appeal from this order must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from the denial of reargument.