GLIBBERY v. COSENZA ASSOCS., INC

ORDERED that the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as abandoned ( see 22 NYCRR 670.8[c], [e]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated March 10, 2003, is dismissed on the ground that no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further

ORDERED that the order dated June 28, 2002, is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.

It is well settled that a defendant seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense ( see Kaplinsky v. Mazor, 307 A.D.2d 916). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in refusing to vacate the default of the defendant Exchange Place Urban Renewal Associates Limited Partnership's (hereinafter EPURA). The motion papers addressed the merits of the parties' controversy but failed to set forth a reasonable excuse for the default.

Further, EPURA's appeal from the order dated March 10, 2003, must be dismissed, since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument ( see Manginaro v. County of Nassau, 221 A.D.2d 603, 604). That motion belatedly raised the issue of personal jurisdiction based upon facts which were available to EPURA at the time its original motion was made ( see Manginaro v. County of Nassau, supra; Mucciola v. City of New York, 177 A.D.2d 553, 554).

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and ADAMS, JJ., concur.