IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAMS

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is denied, and the judgment dated January 6, 2003 is reinstated.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petitioner's motion for leave to reargue, as the petitioner simply sought to restate her earlier arguments rather than point out matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended. Further, there is no indication in the record that the court, in fact, misapprehended the facts or law, or mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision ( see Huber Lathing Corp. v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 132 AD2d 597, 598; cf. Mitsinicos v. New Rochelle Nursing Home, 258 AD2d 630).