DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated March 10, 2003, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying leave to reargue; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated September 9, 2002, is affirmed; it is further,
ORDERED one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant Aer Lingus demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it seeking permanent injunctive relief and imposition of a constructive trust. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact either that he did not have an adequate remedy at law ( see Roushia v. Harvey, 260 A.D.2d 687, 688; Dairy Barn Stores v. Bill's Friendly Auto Serv., 236 A.D.2d 578, 579; Byrne Compressed Air Equip. Co. v. Sperdini, 123 A.D.2d 368, 369) or that there existed a confidential or fiduciary relationship between the parties and that Aer Lingus made a promise upon which he relied ( see Sharp v. Kosmalski, 40 N.Y.2d 119; cf. Simonds v. Simonds, 45 N.Y.2d 233, 241-242). Thus, the motion of Aer Lingus for summary judgment was properly granted.
The plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend and/or supplement the complaint to add causes of action alleging fraud and tortious interference with fiduciary duty and to add an officer of Aer Lingus as a defendant was properly denied for lack of merit ( see Arnold v. Siegel, 296 A.D.2d 363, 364; Tatzel v. Kaplan, 292 A.D.2d 440, 441; Rice v. Penguin Putnam, 289 A.D.2d 318, 319).
RITTER, J.P., H. MILLER, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.