DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated August 19, 2002, is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated June 14, 2002, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated June 14, 2002, is reversed insofar as cross-appealed from, and those branches of the separate motions of the defendants Joseph Blanco and TLC The Laser Center (Northeast), Inc., which were for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action sounding in lack of informed consent are granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.
The plaintiff's motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, was in fact a motion for leave to reargue ( see CPLR 2221[d][2]), the denial of which is not appealable ( see Sabetfard v. Smith, 306 A.D.2d 265, 266).
The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the cause of action sounding in medical malpractice, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact. In opposition, the plaintiff's submissions were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Mendez v. City of New York, 295 A.D.2d 487). The plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant Dr. Blanco's choice of the Photorefractive Keratectomy ("PRK") procedure over the Laser In-Situ Keratomileusis ("LASIK") procedure was the proximate cause of the corneal infections which she sustained, or that such infections could have been prevented with the use of another prophylactic antibiotic ( see Nestorowich v. Ricotta, 97 N.Y.2d 393, 398-400; Lyons v. McCauley, 252 A.D.2d 516, 517; Fallon v. Loree, 136 A.D.2d 956; Schreiber v. Cestari, 40 A.D.2d 1025, 1026).
Given that the plaintiff cannot establish proximate cause, the defendants were also entitled to summary judgment on the cause of action sounding in lack of informed consent ( see Public Health Law § 2805-d, [3]; Mondo v. Ellstein, 302 A.D.2d 437, 438; Spano v. Bertocci, 299 A.D.2d 335, 337-338; Bernard v. Block, 176 A.D.2d 843, 848).
PRUDENTI, P.J., ALTMAN, SMITH and CRANE, JJ., concur.