The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 were read on this motion to/for REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION This action was commenced by filing of a summons and complaint on March 12, 2020 (NY St Cts Elec Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 1). Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (plaintiff) sought a declaratory judgment affirming the validity and priority of the mortgage loan held by plaintiff and permitting plaintiff to record a power of attorney executed by Denise Biderman that endowed Judith Grace Biedermann (collectively defendants) with the authority to act as her attorney-in-fact during their joint purchase of 212 East 47th Street, Unit 25A, New York, New York (id., generally). Issue was joined by defendants interposing an answer with counterclaims on June 15, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc No. 13). Plaintiff filed a reply to the counterclaims on June 25, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc No. 15). The parties moved for summary judgment and following arguments of counsel at a virtual hearing held on June 2, 2021, this court found that enforcement of the mortgage was not valid, as the defaulted loan had been accelerated by commencement of a foreclosure action on April 3, 2013, the statute of limitations expired in 2019, and this action was not commenced until 2020, beyond the statute of limitations (NYSCEF Doc No. 76 (Transcript) at 12:15-13:2). The court also found that the power of attorney issue was moot, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint (id. at 13:3-21). The decision was memorialized in a written order dated April 26, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc No. 70). Defendants served plaintiff with notice of entry of the judgment on April 28, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc No. 71). Plaintiff now moves, pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d), for leave to reargue the decision and order of this court and, upon reargument, an order restoring this action to the court’s calendar and determining the merits of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 79). Defendants opposed, arguing, among other things, that plaintiffs reargument motion was not timely made (NYSCEF Doc No. 80). A motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 (d) is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied any controlling principle of law (CPLR 2221 [d] [2]; Frenchman v. Lynch, 97 AD3d 632,633 [2d Dept 2012]; William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v. Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 [1st Dept 1992], Iv dismissed in part and denied in part 80 NY2d 1005 [1992], rearg denied 81 NY2d 782 [1993]; Foley v. Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1st Dept 1979]). Reargument is “not designed to afford the unsuccessful party with successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided…or to present arguments different from those originally presented” (Matter of Setters v. Al Props. & Devs. [USA] Corp., 139 AD3d 492,492 [1st Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Here, as discussed further below, the court did not overlook or misapprehend the facts or law as they were presented to the court and, thus, reargument is denied. CPLR 2221 (d) (3) provides that a motion for leave to reargue “shall be made within thirty days after service of a copy of the order determining the prior motion and written notice of its entry” (CPLR 2221 [d] [3]). Plaintiff submitted this reargument motion in a timely fashion on May 27, 2022, which was within the thirty-day period after the court’s April 26, 2022 order was entered on April 28, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc No. 76). Contrary to defendants’ argument, plaintiff’s motion to reargue is timely because the June 2021 decision was not appealable (see CPLR 5512[a], Guzman v. Americare, Inc., 202 AD3d 504,504 [1st Dept 2022], lv dismissed 38 NY3d 1156 [2022] ["[n]o appeal lies from a decision, or from an appealed paper directing the settlement of an order”]]; Sanchez de Hernandez v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 76 AD3d 929, 931 [1st Dept 2010], Iv denied 16 NY3d 705 [2011] [holding that motion court's denial, during oral argument, of plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, is not appealable, as no appeal lies from a ruling and the transcript was not "so ordered" by the court]). Plaintiff argues that it should be granted leave to reargue because “the Court did not address and ignored that a new foreclosure action had already been timely commenced” (NYSCEF Doc No. 79 at 4). Plaintiff contends that the second foreclosure action was timely recommenced under the savings provision of CPLR 205 (a) (NYSCEF Doc No. 50 at 6; NYSCEF Doc No. 79 at
25-26; NYSCEF Doc No. 84 at
