BANK OF AMERICA v. TURNER (2022)

Appeal from order (Matthew P. Raso, J.), dated December 16, 2021, dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

Defendant never filed a notice of appeal from the January 2, 2020 order of the court (Naita A. Semaj, J.), which, while vacating her default, denied her motion to dismiss for improper service. Instead, defendant made a second motion to dismiss for improper service. Even if this second motion was proper, defendant did not appeal from the April 14, 2021 order (Matthew P. Raso, J.) denying that motion. Instead defendant purports to appeal from the December 16, 2021 order denying her motion to reargue the April 14, 2021 order. However, no appeal lies from the denial of defendant's latest motion, which was “in actuality, a second attempt to reargue issues decided in the [January 2, 2020 order],” which defendant had not appealed (Rockowitz v Huntington Town House, 283 AD2d 630, 631 [2001]; see Robert Marini Bldr. v Rao, 263 AD2d 846, 848 [1999]).

In any event, even if the issue was properly before us, we would find that defendant's submissions were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to proper service (see Grinshpun v Borokhovich, 100 AD3d 551, 552 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 857 [2013]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Per Curiam.

All concur.