NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from an April 13, 2012 interlocutory order dismissing part of the case against some defendants and denying summary judgment to other defendants. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.

After the judge denied plaintiff's reconsideration motion, plaintiff filed for leave to appeal. Plaintiff's counsel represents, in his case information statement, that the parties agreed to dismiss without prejudice the remaining claims, he withdrew his motion for leave to appeal, and then filed a direct appeal. In the merits brief, plaintiff's counsel incorrectly states that on September 4, 2012, we granted "plaintiff's request to change the motion for leave to appeal to a direct appeal." There is no such order because we never granted that relief. In April 2013, plaintiff's counsel indicated that his reference to such an order was "incorrect."

Dismissing claims without prejudice does not eliminate the interlocutory character of the trial court's order granting summary judgment to some, but not all, defendants. See CPC Int'l, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 316 N.J.Super. 351, 365-66 (App. Div. 1998), certif. denied, 158 N.J. 73, 74 (1999); see also Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 2.2.4 on R. 2:2-3 (2013) (noting that "a dismissal without prejudice of either an issue or a party ... entered for the purpose of rendering an otherwise interlocutory order appealable will preclude the finality and hence the appealability of that order").

Appeal dismissed.