CITARELLA v. LARO MAINTENANCE CORPORATION DIVISION OF LARO SERVICES SYSTEMS INC (1999)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered February 10, 1998, which denied their motion, denominated as one for renewal, but which, in fact, was one for reargument, of the defendant's prior motion for summary judgment, that had been granted by order of the same court dated May 28, 1997.

 ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument.

 The plaintiffs in this slip and fall case did not offer a valid excuse for their failure to offer the testimony of a co-worker of the injured plaintiff when the defendant's motion for summary judgment was submitted.   Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion, which was denominated as one for renewal, was, in fact, one for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable (see, McNeil v. Wagner College, 246 A.D.2d 516, 667 N.Y.S.2d 397;  King v. Rockaway One Co., 202 A.D.2d 395, 608 N.Y.S.2d 523;  Chiarella v. Quitoni, 178 A.D.2d 502, 577 N.Y.S.2d 429).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.