Opinion
May 3, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion of the defendant father which was, in effect, for reargument, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion which was to enjoin the plaintiff mother from relocating with the parties' infant child pending the determination of so much of the motion as was, in effect, for reargument is dismissed as academic; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
That branch of the defendant's motion which was denominated as being for renewal and reargument was, in effect, for reargument, since the purportedly new facts were either not material, or the defendant failed to offer a reasonable excuse as to why they were not submitted at the time of the original motion ( see, Roman v. Konis, 254 A.D.2d 269; Schumann v. City of New York, 242 A.D.2d 616; Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558). Consequently, the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was, in effect, for reargument is dismissed, as an order denying reargument is not appealable.
Moreover, the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to enjoin the plaintiff mother from relocating with the parties' infant child pending the determination of that part of his motion which was, in effect, for reargument, must be dismissed as academic, as reargument has been denied ( see, Matter of Anonymous [Boggs] v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 70 N.Y.2d 972; Matter of McClure v. McClure, 176 A.D.2d 325).
Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.