Opinion
April 21, 1997
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioners appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), entered May 10, 1996, which denied the application, and (2) an order of the same court, dated August 27, 1996, which denied their motion, denominated as one for leave to reargue and renew, but which was, in actuality, only for reargument.
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated August 27, 1996, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered May 10, 1996, is affirmed, and it is further,
Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
The Supreme Count providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioners' application for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e; cf., Sica v. Board of Educ., 226 A.D.2d 542; Matter of Fallon v. County of Westchester, 184 A.D.2d 510, 510-511; Matter of Tabak v. City of New York, 167 A.D.2d 547; Matter of Albanese v. Village of Floral Park, 128 A.D.2d 611, 613-614).
Although denominated a motion for leave to renew and reargue, the petitioners' application was, in actuality, one for reargument (Carson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 237 A.D.2d 242; Gildston v. Schecter, 233 A.D.2d 419; Arcila v. Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 231 A.D.2d 660). As no appeal lies from the denial of a motion for reargument (Carson v. New York City Tr. Auth., supra), the appeal from the order dated August 27, 1996, must be dismissed. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.