Daum v. TesslerDaum v. Tessler
Respondents’ response to petitioner‘s Freedom of Information Law request, providing certain documents and certifying
Petitioner‘s postjudgment motions seeking reconsideration of the July 11, 2003 judgment, although denominated as motions seeking both reargument and renewal were, in fact, motions to reargue only, and no appeal lies from the denial of reargument (see Davis v City of New York, 11 AD3d 254 [2004], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 4 NY3d 750 [2005]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.