DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated April 14, 2000, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated November 29, 1999, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated January 26, 2000, made upon reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated January 26, 2000, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant leave to amend its answer to deny ownership of the property where the plaintiff Gerardo Muro, Jr., was injured. The plaintiffs failed to show that they would be surprised and/or prejudiced by the amendment (see, CPLR 3025[b]; Fahey v. County of Ontario, 44 N.Y.2d 934, 935; Henderson v. Gulati, 270 A.D.2d 308, 309; Sidor v. Zuhoski, 257 A.D.2d 564).
The plaintiffs' subsequent motion, characterized as one for renewal and reargument, was not based on new facts which were unavailable to them at the time they opposed the defendant's motion for leave to amend its answer and for summary judgment (see, Bossio v. Fiorillo, 222 A.D.2d 476). Therefore, the motion was, in effect, one to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable (see, Bossio v. Fiorillo, supra).
The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit (see, Lovario v. Vuotto, 266 A.D.2d 191; Stephan v. Stein, 226 A.D.2d 364).