Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well settled that "[m]otions for reargument are addressed to the sound discretion of the court and may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision" (Swenning v Wankel, 140 A.D.2d 428, 429; see, Rodney v New York Pyrotechnic Prods., 112 A.D.2d 410). In view of the showing made by the movants herein, we find that reargument was properly granted.
We reject the contention of Turbomeca Company and Turbomeca Engine Corp. that the court erred in dismissing the fourth cross claim alleging a breach of the parties' lease. The duty to procure insurance for each helicopter as set forth in the lease was clearly satisfied in this case and, as the Supreme Court determined, nothing more was required by the terms of the parties' agreement. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.