Opinion
Submitted June 20, 2001.
August 13, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered September 11, 2000, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d), and two orders of the same court entered October 10, 2000, and January 3, 2001, respectively, which denied his motions, denominated as motions for renewal and reargument, but which were, in effect, for reargument of the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Zuller Bondy, New York, N.Y. (Philip J. Hoffman of counsel), for appellant.
Ronan, McDonnell Kehoe, Melville, N.Y. (James S. Kehoe of counsel), for respondents.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, P.J., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.
ORDERED that the appeals from the orders entered October 10, 2000, and January 3, 2001, are dismissed, as no appeals lie from orders denying reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order entered September 11, 2000, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d). The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955), and the medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Sallusti v. Jones, 273 A.D.2d 293; Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268).
The plaintiff's subsequent motions, denominated as motions for renewal and reargument, were, in effect, motions for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable. The motions were not based upon new evidence which was unavailable to the plaintiff at the time of the prior motion, and the plaintiff failed to offer a valid excuse for his failure to submit this evidence earlier (see, Sallusti v. Jones, 273 A.D.2d 293; Nisnewitz v. Renna, 273 A.D.2d 210; Harewood v. Aiken, 273 A.D.2d 199).
BRACKEN, P.J., FRIEDMANN, FLORIO, H. MILLER and TOWNES, JJ., concur.