Generally, an appeal cannot be raised from an order of a court granting or refusing a rehearing on a prior decision. An order which denies a motion for the rehearing of an interlocutory order is not appealable. A motion for rehearing is authorized only after entry of a final order or judgment.[i] A party cannot be deprived of his/her right to be heard on a substantive matter not involving a trial ruling by denying him/her the right to make a written motion or a record which results in the denial of the opportunity for appellate review.[ii]
It is to be noted that a motion for rehearing of an order which is not final is unauthorized and does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.[iii] The denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to name indispensable parties or for lack of standing is not an appealable nonfinal order.[iv] In Potucek v. Smeja, 419 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1982), the court observed that appeals from both final and non final orders must be taken within 30 days of the rendition of the order to be reviewed.
In Longo v. Longo, 515 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1987), the court observed that a motion for new trial for rehearing has to be served within ten days after the return of the verdict in a jury action or the date of filing of the judgment in a non jury action. Whereas, in Morton & Oxley, Ltd. v. Charles S. Eby, M.D., P.A., 916 So. 2d 820 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2005), it was observed that an order denying a motion for rehearing of an interlocutory order is a non appealable order.
In State v. Gruzen Pshp., 239 A.D.2d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1997), it was observed that there is no right to appeal for an order denying a motion to reargue generally. However, if the trial court denies the motion to reargue but addresses the merits of the motion, adheres to its original determination, then the order is appealable.
[i] Richardson v. Watson, 611 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1992)
[ii] Hochberg v. Davis, 171 A.D.2d 192 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1991)
[iii] Potucek v. Smeja, 419 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1982), See also Richardson v. Watson, 611 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1992)
[iv] Morton & Oxley, Ltd. v. Charles S. Eby, M.D., P.A., 916 So. 2d 820 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2005)