While MVAIC's second motion challenging the motion court's claimed oversight of MVAIC's opposition to plaintiffs motion for leave to sue MVAIC was properly deemed by the motion court as one to reargue MVAIC's first motion challenging the claimed oversight, the motion court erred in concluding that the second motion was untimely. When MVAIC made the second motion, the order rendered on its first motion had not yet been served with notice of entry. Therefore, the time to appeal the first order had not yet run, and the second motion was timely ( see Luming Cafe v Birman, 125 AD2d 180). Accordingly, we remand for consideration of MVAIC's motion to reargue on the merits ( see id.).