Opinion
April 16, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.).
Although respondents denominated the motion as one to vacate a preliminary injunction, the IAS Court correctly characterized it as one to reargue, the motion papers merely rehashing points made on the first motion and containing no new facts that were unavailable to respondents at that time, the denial of which is nonappealable ( Tiffany Brokers v. Rakofsky, 88 A.D.2d 862; Silverstein v. Silverstein, 130 A.D.2d 369). Were we to consider the merits of the appeal, we would affirm.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.