| Utopia Equip., Inc. v Maya Assur. Co. |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 50463(U) [51 Misc 3d 132(A)] [51 Misc 3d 132(A)] |
| Decided on March 3, 2016 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered June 24, 2013. The order denied plaintiff's motion for leave to renew and reargue its opposition to defendant's prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that so much of the appeal as is from the portion of the order that denied the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking reargument is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order, insofar as reviewed, is affirmed, without costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied its motion for leave to reargue and renew its opposition to defendant's prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
So much of the appeal as is from the portion of the order that denied the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking reargument is dismissed, as no appeal lies from that portion of the order (see Ireland v Wilenzik, 296 AD2d 771, 773 [2002]; see also Gosek v Lunt Theatre Co., 89 AD3d 418, 418 [2011]; Arab Am. Found. v Naber, 260 AD2d 588 [1999]; Neff v Steven Schwartzapfel, P.C., 254 AD2d 137 [1998]).
Contrary to plaintiff's argument, Alev Med. Supply, Inc. v Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (36 Misc 3d 132[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51294[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]), decided after the determination of defendant's prior motion, did not constitute a change in the law (see e.g. Russell v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 11 AD3d 668 [2004]; Magic Recovery Med. & Surgical Supply Inc. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 67 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 9 Misc 3d 19 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005]). Thus, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there had been a change in the law that would alter the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]), and the branch of plaintiff's motion seeking leave to renew was properly denied (see Jackson v Westminster House Owners Inc., 52 AD3d 404 [2008]).
Accordingly, the order, insofar as reviewed, is affirmed.
Elliot, J.P., Pesce and Solomon, JJ., concur.