HOFFELD v. LINDHOLM

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). The denial of a motion for reargument is not appealable ( Rosen v Rosenholc, 303 AD2d 230).

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). 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 NY2d 320, 324).

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