relief” so long as that motion requests a change in the reasons underlying the judgment along the lines of the enumerated forms of relief. Marsh, 138 Ill. 2d at 462, 563 N.E.2d at 461; Hayes Machinery Movers, Inc. v. REO Movers & Van Lines, Inc., 338 Ill. App. 3d 443, 446, 788 N.E.2d 259, 261 (2003). Here, the D’Agostinos’ “Motion to Amend Memorandum Decision and Judgment” does not attack the judgment or its underlying rationale but, rather, accepts it and requests a Rule 304(a) finding. However, a Rule 304(a) finding was not necessary because of Rule 304(b)(4). 210 Ill. 2d R. 304(b)(4); Estate of Yucis, slip op. at 10 n.2. Therefore, it did not have the effect of tolling the time in which to appeal. See, e.g., Hayes Machinery Movers, 338 Ill. App. 3d at 445-47, 788 N.E.2d at 260-62 (<HOLDING>). We accordingly dismiss this appeal for lack
holding that findings of fact and legal conclusions are neither necessary nor proper in summary judgment proceeding holding that court is not required to state findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying  3582 motion holding that the trial courts oral expression in open court of its future intention to render a judgment was not itself a judgment but rather the trial courts written findings of fact and conclusions of law were its judgment holding that a trial courts judgment must comply with the statutory requirement that the judgment contain written findings of fact and conclusions of law holding that motion accepting judgment but requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law was not directed against the judgment