DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as granted those branches of the plaintiffs' cross motion which were for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to CPLR 305(c) to name Metro Terminals Corp. as a defendant and to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 203(b)(5) is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, with costs.
The appeal from so much of the order as granted those branches of the plaintiffs' cross motion which were for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to CPLR 305(c) to name Metro Terminals Corp. as a defendant and to serve a supplemental summons and amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 203(b)(5) must be dismissed, because the appellant is not aggrieved by that part of the order (see, CPLR 5511; Caballero v. Caballero, 247 A.D.2d 352; Gomberg v. Goman, 117 A.D.2d 583, 584; Richardson v. Millard, 33 A.D.2d 820).
The appellant's motion for summary judgment was properly denied, as it failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law (see, Vasquez v. RVA Garage, 238 A.D.2d 407).