Opinion
December 18, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.).
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument.
Contrary to the defendants' contention, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that the defendants' motion, denominated as a motion for renewal/reargument, was essentially a motion to reargue, since it was not based upon new facts unavailable at the time of the original motion ( see, Rebell v Trask, 220 A.D.2d 594). Accordingly, since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument, the appeal must be dismissed ( see, Freeman Provisions v Investors Ins. Co., 220 A.D.2d 380). Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.