Opinion
Submitted January 11, 2000
February 24, 2000
In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA article 21, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Surrogate's Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated December 10, 1998, which denied his motion, in effect, for leave to reargue his petition to determine legal fees.
Mark Armand Wasserman, New York, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Kathleen K. Trum, Garden City, N.Y., respondent pro se.
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
Although denominated as one for renewal, the petitioner's motion was not supported by new or additional facts (see, Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568 ; CPLR 2221). Therefore, the motion was, in effect, one for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Matter of Brooklyn Welding Corp. v. Chin, 236 A.D.2d 392 ; Pahl Equip. Corp. v. Kassis, 182 A.D.2d 22 ).
The respondent's application to impose a sanction is denied.