The motion court should have granted the discontinuance with prejudice, since plaintiff would otherwise be able to circumvent a prior order of the same court, different Justice, rendered in connection with the second action prior to consolidation, and thereby deprive certain defendants of a substantial right by seeking disclosure ostensibly for purposes of what was the first action prior to consolidation. Because certain causes of action in the consolidated complaint are derived from the second action, which is being discontinued, we reinstate plaintiff's original verified complaint, dated November 17, 1992, in the first action before consolidation.
The order denying reargument is nonappealable (see, Berman v Szpilzinger, 180 A.D.2d 612).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Wallach and Mazzarelli, JJ.