Opinion
April 10, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order entered March 2, 1994, is dismissed since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated May 26, 1993, is modified by deleting the provision thereof which denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion, as so modified the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.
It is well established that nonmarital parties living together may contract for personal services so long as the agreement is express and the consideration is not for illicit sexual relations (see, Morone v Morone, 50 N.Y.2d 481, 486). When a contract contains both lawful and unlawful objectives, however, "the illegality may be severed and the legal components enforced" to avoid unjust enrichment (McCall v Frampton, 81 A.D.2d 607, 608). Nevertheless, "[a]greements tending to dissolve a marriage or to facilitate adultery are closely scrutinized to determine whether the main objective of the agreement is aimed to produce that result" (McCall v Frampton, supra, at 608). Resolution of this question will depend upon the prevention of unjust enrichment and the legal components of the agreement (McCall v Frampton, supra). The facts of this case do not establish unjust enrichment on the part of the defendant. Furthermore, the main object of the alleged agreement was to dissolve a marriage and to facilitate a divorce. Therefore, no cause of action existed with respect to the alleged agreement.
The appeal from the denial of the defendant's motion, denominated as one for renewal must be dismissed. The motion is actually one for reargument since it was not based upon new facts unavailable at the time of the original motion (see, Huttner v McDaid, 151 A.D.2d 547). The denial of a motion for reargument is not appealable (see, Huttner v McDaid, supra; Mgrditchian v Donato, 141 A.D.2d 513).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.