Case Name: Jessica Parrilla, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Michele Parrilla, et al., Appellants, v. Gary Saphire, D.P.M., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-04-12
Citations: 149 A.D.3d 859
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jessica Parrilla, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Michele Parrilla, et al., Appellants, v Gary Saphire, D.P.M., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.
Judges: Leventhal, J.P., Cohen, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 149
Pages: 859–859

Head Matter:
Jessica Parrilla, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Michele Parrilla, et al., Appellants, v Gary Saphire, D.P.M., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.
[49 NYS3d 922]

Opinion:
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for podiatric malpractice and lack of informed consent, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Weston, J.), dated November 17, 2015, which denied their motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, but which was, in actuality, one for leave to reargue their opposition to the prior motion of the defendants Gary Saphire and Parkway Podiatry Group for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Motion by the defendants Gary Saphire and Parkway Podiatry Group, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal on the ground, among other things, that no appeal lies from an order denying reargument. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated October 21, 2016, that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the appeal was held in abeyance and referred to the Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is
Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal is granted; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.
The appeal must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see Rosendale v Harrison & Burrowes Bridge Constructors, Inc., 78 AD3d 680 [2010]; Nasr v Schwartz, 288 AD2d 197 [2001]).
Leventhal, J.P., Cohen, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.