Opinion
June 6, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 5, 1992, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered March 27, 1992, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs are awarded one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Henry Michaelson because the complaint failed to demand any relief from him.
In addition, allegations contained in the plaintiff's cause of action to recover damages for fraud against the defendant Florence Risman do not sufficiently comply with the pleading requirements set forth in CPLR 3016 (b). Bare allegations of fraud without any allegation of the details constituting the wrong are clearly insufficient to sustain such a cause of action (see, Gervasio v. Di Napoli, 126 A.D.2d 514; Lapis Enters. v International Blimpie Corp., 84 A.D.2d 286, 292).
Finally, because the plaintiff failed to offer any acceptable excuses for her failure to submit the "additional" material in opposition to the original motion, her second motion, although denominated as being for "reargument and renewal", was merely for reargument (see, Wodecki v. Carty, 167 A.D.2d 398; Caffee v Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 352). The denial of a motion for reargument is not appealable. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.