2885-2885A-2885B. ROBERT JONES, plf-ap, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK def, NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, def-res — Held & Hines, LLP, New York (James K. Hargrove of counsel), for ap — Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana Lawless of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered November 12, 2015, which denied plaintiff’s motion to, among other things, renew and reargue his prior application for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered April 22, 2015, which vacated an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about October 17, 2014, which had granted, upon HHC’s default, plaintiff’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon HHC, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered June 1, 2015, which clarified the order entered April 22, 2015 to the extent of granting HHC’s motion to vacate the order entered on or about October 17, 2014 and denying plaintiff’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon HHC, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable order.
Although the motion court denied the motion to reargue as untimely, that part of the order is appealable because the court also addressed the merits of the motion and therefore effectively granted reargument (see Liss v. Trans Auto Sys., 68 NY2d 15, 20 [1986]; see also Pezhman v. Chanel, Inc., 126 AD3d 497 [1st Dept 2015]). Upon reargument, the motion court properly adhered to its original determination denying plaintiff’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, because plaintiff failed to establish that the court had overlooked or misapprehended any issue of law or fact in making its original determination (CPLR 2221[d][2]; see Pezhman, 126 AD3d at 497). In support of his motion to reargue, plaintiff improperly submitted his affidavit, an expert’s affidavit and a caregiver’s affidavit, because those documents were not offered in support of its original application or in opposition to HHC’s motion to vacate (see CPLR 2221[d] [2]; Mazinov v. Rella, 79 AD3d 979, 980 [2d Dept 2010]).
