Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The cross motion by the appellants which was denominated a motion "to renew or reargue" was really a motion for reargument, because it was not based upon any additional facts, and was grounded upon a change in the law as stated by this Court in Longacre Corp. v. Better Hosp. Equip. Corp. ( 228 A.D.2d 653; see, e.g., Matter of Huie, 20 N.Y.2d 568; Savory v. Romex Realty Corp., 194 A.D.2d 601).
We further conclude that the order appealed from simply denied the motion to reargue as opposed to granting reargument and adhering to the court's prior determination ( cf., Matter of Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v. Pellegrino, 203 A.D.2d 457). No appeal lies from an order denying reargument ( see, DeFreitas v. Board of Educ., 129 A.D.2d 672).
Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.