Jeffrey Hoffeld, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. LLP

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Jeffrey Hoffeld, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Kerstin Lindholm, Defendant–Respondent, Proskauer Rose LLP, Defendant.

5417

Decided: June 23, 2011

Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Freedman, Manzanet–Daniels, JJ. Andrew Rotstein, Brooklyn, for appellants. Junge & Mele, LLP, New York (Armand P. Mele of counsel), for respondent.

_

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered September 13, 2010, which denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to reargue the denial of summary judgment on their claims for breach of contract and account stated, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as nonappealable.

We conclude that despite plaintiffs' denomination in their notice of motion, the motion at issue was one for reargument (see Fontanez v. St. Barnabas Hosp., 24 AD3d 218, 218 [2005] ).   The denial of a motion for reargument is not appealable (Rosen v. Rosenholc, 303 A.D.2d 230, 230 [2003] ).

Were we to consider the merits of plaintiffs' underlying motion, we would find that plaintiffs have violated the rule against successive summary judgment motions (Jones v. 636 Holding Corp., 73 AD3d 409, 409 [2010] ).   Furthermore, denial of summary judgment on all claims would be appropriate due to remaining material issues of fact requiring trial (Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324 [1986] ).

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

_

CLERK