Opinion
October 21, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).
Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, a motion based upon an intervening change in the law is a motion to reargue, not renew ( Matter of Barnes [Council 82, AFSCME], 235 A.D.2d 826, citing Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2221:8, at 183-184). Since no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue absent unusual circumstances ( supra, at 826, citing, inter alia, Siegel, N.Y. Prac § 254, at 383 [2d ed]), the IAS Court's rejection of plaintiffs' argument that Mirchel v. RMJ Sec. Corp. ( 205 A.D.2d 388) effected a change in the law validating their complaint is unreviewable. Renewal was properly denied since no previously unavailable or unknown evidence was submitted ( see, Lee v. Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 226 A.D.2d 226, lv dismissed 89 N.Y.2d 916), and, even if there were, the dismissal of the action is hardly reason by itself for a discretionary departure from that rule. We have considered plaintiffs' other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Nardelli, Tom and Colabella, JJ.