Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 3, 2003, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated May 29, 2003, as denied the motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint as time-barred is dismissed as academic; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated May 29, 2003, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint. Moreover, since the second amended complaint superseded the amended complaint, the appeal from so much of the order dated May 29, 2003, as denied the motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint as time-barred has been rendered academic ( see Elegante Leasing, Ltd. v. Cross Trans. Svc, Inc., 11 AD3d 650; Baker v. 16 Sutton Place Apt. Corp., 2 AD3d 119).