Opinion
Submitted February 14, 2001.
March 19, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), entered December 13, 1999, as, in effect, upon reargument, adhered to so much of an order of the same court entered April 22, 1999, as denied that branch of her motion which was to compel the defendants to respond to interrogatories.
Diego Camarda, Scarsdale, N.Y., for appellant.
Patrick Colligan (Carol R. Finocchio, New York, N.Y. [Lisa M. Comeau] of counsel), for respondents.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the motion at issue was one for reargument (see, CPLR 2221; Santana v. Sterling, 278 A.D.2d 219 [2d Dept., Dec. 4, 2000]). However, the order is appealable because the Supreme Court, in effect, granted reargument and, upon reargument, addressed the merits of the motion and adhered to its original determination (see, CPLR 5517[a][1]; Sorg v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 248 A.D.2d 622; Gabriele v. Metro. Suburban Bus Auth., 239 A.D.2d 575; O'Hara v. Dwyer, 213 A.D.2d 406).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to compel the defendants to respond to interrogatories (see, CPLR 3130; see also, Guarino v. Mine Safety Appliance Co., 25 N.Y.2d 460; Farca v. Semah, 181 A.D.2d 757).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.