Appeal dismissed, with costs.
Appellant's motion was in reality a motion to reargue since no new matter was presented which was unavailable to him in connection with his prior cross motion, which was denied ( see, Galaxy Export v Bedford Textile Prods., 89 A.D.2d 576; Erlich v Erlich, 80 A.D.2d 882). Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed. In any event, were we to reach the merits we would hold that the denial of the application to transfer the case to the Jury Calendar was not an abuse of discretion. Titone, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.