neither final orders nor orders granting a new trial, the reasoning being that they are interlocutory in nature and since there has never been a trial in the first instance they cannot be considered orders granting a ‘new’ trial or ‘rehearing.’ ” Pioneer Assocs. v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 300 S.C. 346, 348, 387 S.E.2d 711, 712 (Ct.App.1989). The order here, as with the order in Pioneer Associates, does not grant a “new” trial because there has not been a trial yet in the case. In addition, the order granting Rule 60(b) relief does not affect a substantial right. Our supreme court has recognized: “Avoidance of trial is not a ‘substantial right’ entitling a party to immediate appeal of an interlocutory order.” Shields v. Martin Marietta Corp., 303 S.C. 469, 470, 402 S.E.2d 482, 483 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, in holding the grant of Rule 60(b)
holding that denial of counsel in section 1983 action is not immediately appealable holding that the denial of a motion to remand is interlocutory and not immediately appealable holding decision on a motion to restore the case to the active docket is not immediately appealable holding that the denial of a motion to disqualify counsel in a civil case is not appealable holding if immunity is raised as a basis in the motion for summary adjudication a substantial right is affected and the denial is immediately appealable