jurisdiction to hear appeals from denials of motions for reconsideration!.]'’ Totz v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm’n, 474 A.2d 827, 828 (D.C. 1984). However, we have more recently clarified that "if a Motion for Reconsideration has tolled the timing requirements for an appealable order, and an appeal is timely noted following the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration, both the appeal-able order and the Motion for Reconsideration may be reviewed.” Puckrein v. Jenkins, 884 A.2d 46, 53 n.8 (D.C. 2005). As discussed below, the filing of the second motion for reconsideration did not toll the time for tiling a petition for review. 4 . We also decline to equitably toll the time for seeking review. See Mathis v. District of Columbia Hous. Auth., 124 A.3d 1089, 1103 (D.C. 2015) (<HOLDING>). Equitable tolling should only be granted
holding the timeliness provision in the habeas corpus statute is subject to equitable tolling holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling holding title vii subject to equitable tolling holding that rule 15 a2 is subject to equitable tolling holding that  2244d is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases