| Matter of Wayne T.I. v Latisha T.C. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00900 [48 AD3d 1165] |
| February 1, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Wayne T.I., Respondent, v Latisha T.C., AlsoKnown as Latisha T., Respondent, and Onondaga County Department of Social Services,Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Bryan R. Hedges, J.), enteredMarch 17, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5. The order, insofar asappealed from, denied the amended motion of respondent Onondaga County Department ofSocial Services for leave to reargue, renew and resettle an order entered April 12, 2005, whichawarded petitioner attorney's fees.
It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent Onondaga County Department of Social Services (DSS) appealsfrom an order that, inter alia, denied its amended motion seeking "leave to reargue, renew andresettle" an order from which no appeal was perfected. DSS contends that Family Court erred indenying that part of its amended motion seeking leave to reargue. The appeal from that part ofthe order must be dismissed (see Empire Ins. Co. v Food City, 167 AD2d 983 [1990]).We reject the further contention of DSS that the court erred in denying that part of its amendedmotion seeking leave to renew. In support of the amended motion, DSS failed to offer new factsthat were unavailable at the time of the prior motion or to offer a valid excuse for its failure topresent the allegedly new facts at the time of its prior motion. Thus, that part of the amendedmotion purportedly seeking leave to renew was actually one for reargument and, as noted, noappeal lies from that part of the order (see generally Pfeiffer v Jacobowitz, 29 AD3d 661, 662 [2006];Sallusti v Jones, 273 AD2d 293, 294 [2000]; Lichtman v Mount Judah Cemetery,269 AD2d 319, 320 [2000], lv denied in part and dismissed in part 95 NY2d 860 [2000]).Furthermore, no appeal lies from that part of the order denying the amended motion of DSSinsofar as it sought leave to resettle the prior order inasmuch as DSS sought substantive changesin the prior order (see Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v Interboro Asphalt Surface Co., 303AD2d 532, 536 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 506 [2003]; Matter of Sherman N.,267 AD2d 312 [1999]). Thus, the appeal from that part of the order must also be dismissed.Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Lunn and Peradotto, JJ.