Opinion
1492 CA 17–01106
12-22-2017
Nancy LEWIS, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER, Rochester Police Department and Donald T. Manfredi, Defendants–Appellants.
BRIAN F. CURRAN, CORPORATION COUNSEL, ROCHESTER (SPENCER L. ASH OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS–APPELLANTS. WILLIAM MATTAR, P.C., WILLIAMSVILLE (MATTHEW J. KAISER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT.
BRIAN F. CURRAN, CORPORATION COUNSEL, ROCHESTER (SPENCER L. ASH OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS–APPELLANTS.
WILLIAM MATTAR, P.C., WILLIAMSVILLE (MATTHEW J. KAISER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:
Contrary to defendants' contention, Supreme Court properly determined that their purported "motion to renew" is a motion for leave to reargue (see DiCienzo v. Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency, 63 A.D.3d 1663, 1664, 879 N.Y.S.2d 745 [4th Dept. 2009] ; see generally CPLR 2221[d], [e] ). In support of their motion, defendants failed to offer new facts that were unavailable when the court initially denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Matter of Hamilton v. Alley, 143 A.D.3d 1235, 1236, 38 N.Y.S.3d 493 [4th Dept. 2016] ; Hill v. Milan, 89 A.D.3d 1458, 1458, 932 N.Y.S.2d 411 [4th Dept. 2011] ). Thus, the motion was in effect a motion for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see MidFirst Bank v. Storto, 121 A.D.3d 1575, 1575, 993 N.Y.S.2d 854 [4th Dept. 2014] ; Britt v. Buffalo Mun. Hous. Auth., 115 A.D.3d 1252, 1252, 982 N.Y.S.2d 649 [4th Dept. 2014] ). It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.