Opinion
June 19, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied the cross motion for reargument is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
Under these circumstances, where a Supreme Court order dated August 24, 1992, precluded the plaintiff from offering any evidence at trial, an order granting the defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint was proper.
The plaintiff's cross motion must be considered one to reargue rather than one to renew, because the plaintiff presented no new facts which existed at the time of the original motion but which for some reason were not known to him (see, Federal Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Green, 215 A.D.2d 433; Caffee v. Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 352). No appeal lies from an order denying a cross motion to reargue (see, Adams v. Berkowitz, 212 A.D.2d 557). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.