Opinion
March 26, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.).
Plaintiff Friedlander commenced this action, on behalf of herself in the name of the real estate general partnership, for dissolution and related relief.
By order entered December 6, 1990, the IAS court denied a motion for summary judgment which was predicated on the theory that a certain written communication by plaintiff had effectively dissolved the partnership. Plaintiff timely appealed therefrom. Thereafter, plaintiff, in a cross-motion sought to vacate the aforesaid order which, as noted, by the IAS court, was in reality nothing more than a motion to reargue. Upon a review of the record, we affirm the order entered on December 6, 1990, and dismiss the appeal from the order entered May 10, 1991 (see, Foley v Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 567-568).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Kupferman, Ross, Smith and Rubin, JJ.