Opinion
July 24, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.).
We find that Senise's motion resulting in the order appealed from was clearly in the nature of reargument, not renewal or vacatur as it was alternatively denominated. As a result, its denial is unappealable (Nitec Paper Corp. v. Carborundum Co., 73 A.D.2d 881, 883, lv dismissed 49 N.Y.2d 1047; Glowacki v. Szatkowski, 198 A.D.2d 264, 265), and this appeal must be dismissed. Were we to consider the motion as one for renewal or vacatur, it is our view that the IAS Court properly denied the motion, since corporate documents reflecting Senise's written resignation as the corporate officer and director were in existence at the time that he made his cross motion to dismiss in November 1985 ( see, Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 568) and the other evidence submitted in support does not constitute new evidence warranting vacatur under CPLR 5015 (a) (2). We have considered respondent-appellant's other claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.