DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated May 28, 2003, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated February 19, 2003, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.
The record supports the Supreme Court's determination that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for malicious prosecution ( see Johnson v. Kings County Dist. Attorney's Off., 308 A.D.2d 278) and abuse of process ( see Hauser v. Bartow, 273 N.Y. 370). Accordingly, those causes of action were properly dismissed.
The plaintiff's motion, characterized as one for leave to renew and reargue, was not based upon new facts which were unavailable to him at the time he submitted his opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint ( see Elias v. Grossman, 306 A.D.2d 432). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to offer a valid excuse why the additional evidence upon which he relied was not previously submitted ( see Bossio v. Fiorillo, 222 A.D.2d 476). Therefore, the motion for leave to renew and reargue was, in fact, a motion for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable ( see CPLR 2221; Elias v. Grossman, supra; Bossio v. Fiorillo, supra).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
H. MILLER, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.