Case Name: Shirley Morgan, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. New York Telephone, Defendant-Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, and AT&T, Defendant-Appellant and Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. City of New York, First and Second Third-Party Defendant-Respondent; Nepon Electric Corporation of America et al., Second Third-Party Defendants-Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1995-10-30
Citations: 220 A.D.2d 729
Docket Number: 
Parties: Shirley Morgan, Plaintiff-Respondent, v New York Telephone, Defendant-Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, and AT&T, Defendant-Appellant and Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. City of New York, First and Second Third-Party Defendant-Respondent; Nepon Electric Corporation of America et al., Second Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 220
Pages: 729–730

Head Matter:
Shirley Morgan, Plaintiff-Respondent, v New York Telephone, Defendant-Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, and AT&T, Defendant-Appellant and Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. City of New York, First and Second Third-Party Defendant-Respondent; Nepon Electric Corporation of America et al., Second Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.
[633 NYS2d 999]

Opinion:
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant AT&T appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated July 1,1994, which denied its motion, in effect, to reargue its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered the appeal is dismissed, with costs payable by the appellant to the plaintiff-respondent.
Although the appellant denominated its motion as one to renew, because it offered additional evidence which was in its possession at the time of the previous motion, we deem it to be a motion to reargue (see, First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v Ruby Land Dev., 215 AD2d 721; Price v Patagonia, 212 AD2d 765; Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Pellegrino, 203 AD2d 457).
The denial of a motion to reargue is not appealable (see, Michaelson v Scaduto, 205 AD2d 507). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.