ESTATE OF DUNPHY v. DUNPHY

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs to the intervenor-respondent.

Although the appellant's motion was denominated as one to renew and reargue, the appellant did not offer any new evidence on the matter of the lien extension. Accordingly, the motion was actually a motion to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable ( see, Price v. Palagonia, 212 A.D.2d 765; Marine Midland Bank v. Freedom Rd. Realty Assocs., 203 A.D.2d 538). We also note, that even if the order were appealable, the appellant would be foreclosed from raising on this appeal the issue of the lien extension because the appeal from the prior order which denied the motion to extend the lien was dismissed on October 7, 1997, for failure to perfect ( see, Bray v. Cox, 38 N.Y.2d 350).

Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.