DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated March 21, 2003, as denied that branch of the appellant's cross motion which was, in effect, for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated March 21, 2003, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated May 29, 2002, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The appellant's cross motion, denominated as one for leave to renew or reargue the plaintiff's prior motion, was not based on new facts which were unavailable at the time of the original motion, and therefore the motion was, in effect, one for reargument, the denial of which is not appealable ( see Reyes v. Ross, 289 A.D.2d 554, 555; Duffy v. Wetzler, 260 A.D.2d 596, 597).
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, in response to the plaintiff's prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, he failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact. The appellant's pleadings not only raised no valid defenses, but acknowledged the default and debt owed. It is well settled that once a mortgagor defaults on loan payments, a mortgagee is not required to accept less than the full repayment as demanded ( see First Federal Sav. Bank v. Midura, 264 A.D.2d 407; Home Sav. of America, FSB v. Isaacson, 240 A.D.2d 633). Accordingly, the plaintiff's refusal to accept a reduced settlement in satisfaction of the amount owed presents no valid defense in this foreclosure action.
The plaintiff's motion to extend the notice of pendency was properly granted, as good cause was shown ( see CPLR 6513).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, CRANE and MASTRO, JJ., concur.