Opinion
April 5, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burstein, J.).
Ordered that the order dated November 20, 1990, is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the order entered April 16, 1991, is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
It is well settled that a party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). In this case, the court properly denied the defendants third-party plaintiffs' original motion for summary judgment on their indemnification claim against the third-party defendants since they failed to make a prima facie showing that the amount paid to the plaintiff in settlement of the underlying action was reasonable (see, Feuer v Menkes Feuer, Inc., 8 A.D.2d 294).
The defendants third-party plaintiffs' motion, denominated as a motion for renewal, was, in actuality, a motion for reargument, since they failed to offer a reasonable excuse for their failure to submit the additional facts alleged on the original motion (see, Caffee v Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 352; see also, Weisse v Kamhi, 129 A.D.2d 698). Thus, the appeal from that order must be dismissed. In any event, the papers submitted in support of the motion for reargument failed to establish that the settlement of the underlying claim was reasonable. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.