Plaintiff's motion to "renew and/or reargue", arguing that the IAS Court had overlooked relevant facts in that prior order, was properly characterized by the IAS Court as one for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable (Charney v North Jersey Trading Corp., 184 A.D.2d 409).
Were we to address the merits, we would agree with the IAS court that the parties' indemnification agreement, when read in conjunction with the separation agreement, absolved plaintiff father of any further duty to support his child, and is therefore repugnant to the public policy of this State mandating a parental duty to support children (Griffin v Griffin, 79 A.D.2d 828, 829; Valdimer v Mount Vernon Hebrew Camps, 9 A.D.2d 900, 901, affd 9 N.Y.2d 21).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Asch and Rubin, JJ.