679 LLC v. Manuel Sosa and Joel Sosa, Respondents-Tenants-Appellants, - and - John Doe and Jane Doe, Respondents. (2023)

Per Curiam.

Appeal from order (Christel Fleur Garland, J.), dated August 10, 2022, dismissed, without costs, as nonappealable. Appeal from order (Christel Fleur Garland, J.), dated August 18, 2022, dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Despite tenants' denomination of their February 11, 2022 motion as one to vacate a prior (unappealed) order on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation (see CPLR 5015[a][3]), the motion was, in actuality, a motion for leave to reargue, and Civil Court properly treated it as such, "since it merely reiterated previously raised arguments, and presented no new material evidence" (Kaminer v Wexler, 40 AD3d 405, 406 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 955, 975 [2007]; see Cangro v Cangro, 272 AD2d 286 [2000]). Indeed, the purported new facts concerning the building superintendent's status as an agent, rather than an employee of landlord, were known at the time of the prior motion and specifically addressed in tenants' counsel's May 12, 2021 affirmation. Accordingly, the appeal from the August 10, 2022 order is dismissed, as no appeal lies from the denial of a motion for reargument (see Brito v Allstate Ins. Co., 135 AD3d 568 [2016]; Matter of Suzanne v Suzanne, 69 AD3d 1011 [2010]). Were we to reach the merits, we would, in any event affirm.

Tenants' contentions regarding the August 18, 2022 order have been rendered academic by the parties' stipulation dated May 8, 2023, resolving, among other things, the parties' dispute regarding landlord's compliance with an order issued by DHCR.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: June 26, 2023