appeal to this court is untimely, thereby depriving us of jurisdiction. Rule 203(b)(1), SCACR, provides that the notice of appeal from a civil action shall be served on respondents within thirty days after receipt of written notice of entry of the order or judgment. Although timely motions for JNOV, to alter or amend the judgment, or for a new trial stay the time for appeal until such time as written notice of entry of the order granting or denying the motions is received, they do not extend the time for appeal when, as in the current situation, the subsequent motions are merely restatements of previous motions. Recently, in Collins Music Co. v. IGT, 353 S.C. 559, 579 S.E.2d 524 (Ct.App.2002), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 303, 157 L.Ed.2d Co., 349 S.C. 216, 562 S.E.2d 615 (2002) (<HOLDING>), we held that because IGT’s Rule 59(e) motion
holding that motions requesting reconsideration of interlocutory orders do not toll the time for seeking review under rule 21 ala r app p holding that an unauthorized motion for rehearing does not toll defendants time for filing a notice of appeal holding that successive new trial or jnov motions do not toll the time for serving the notice of appeal holding that successive posttrial motions do not toll the time for appeal holding that successive rule 59e motions unlike timely filed ones do not toll the time for appealing