DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a judgment entered upon the default of the appealing party ( see CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.
An action dismissed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 may be restored only if the plaintiff demonstrates both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious cause of action ( see Precision Envelope Co. v. Marcus Co. LLC, 306 A.D.2d 263, 264; Basetti v. Nour, 287 A.D.2d 126, 134; Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 A.D.2d 190, 197; cf. Davis v. Maldonado, 307 A.D.2d 948; Reices v. Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn Queens, 306 A.D.2d 394). The plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable explanation for her repeated failure to proceed with the trial or to comply with disclosure ( see Campenni v. Ridgecroft Estates Owners, 261 A.D.2d 496, 497; Booth v. Hawk Contrs., 259 A.D.2d 577, 578; Van Kleeck v. Horton Mem. Hosp., 251 A.D.2d 494). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate the order granting the motion to dismiss the complaint and the judgment entered thereon upon her default, and to restore the case to the calendar.
RITTER, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.