Opinion
May 13, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Ferraro, J.).
Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The order appealed from is the functional equivalent of an order denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the judgment without prejudice to renewal. We have previously determined that a substantial right of a party is affected (CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]) by an order denying that party's motion for relief without prejudice to renewal ( see, e.g., Winn v. Warren Lbr. Co., 11 A.D.2d 713; Ciaffone v. Manhattantown, Inc., 20 A.D.2d 666; Guttentag v. Guttentag, 22 A.D.2d 895), but not where, as here, the party seeking to appeal was the successful opponent of such a motion ( Samuels v. Ames Realty Corp., 79 A.D.2d 651; cf. Sherman v. Morales, 50 A.D.2d 610).
Defendant's remedy, if he be so disposed, is to prosecute an appeal from any subsequent order granting resettlement. Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur.