DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated September 23, 2002, is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated April 15, 2002, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.
The plaintiffs' motion, characterized as one for leave to renew and reargue the prior motion for summary judgment, was not based upon new facts which were unavailable at the time of the prior motion. In addition, the plaintiffs failed to offer a valid excuse as to why the evidence offered upon their motion for leave to "renew and reargue," was not submitted in opposition to the prior motion. 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 Sallusti v. Jones, 273 A.D.2d 293, 294; Bossio v. Fiorillo, 222 A.D.2d 476).
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the first and second causes of action to enjoin the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' rights to complete construction of a one-story commercial structure as academic since construction of the building has been completed (see Vanderwoude v. Post/Rockland Assocs., 192 A.D.2d 702). Further, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action for a declaratory judgment since the rights of the parties cannot be affected by the court's determination (see CPLR 3001; Cuomo v. Long Is. Light. Co., 71 N.Y.2d 349, 354; New York Public Interest Research Group v. Carey, 42 N.Y.2d 527, 530-531; Fragoso v. Romano, 268 A.D.2d 457; Matter of Guild of Administrative Officers of Suffolk County Community Coll. v. County of Suffolk, 126 A.D.2d 725, 728). The Supreme Court also properly granted summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action to recover damages based upon the defendants' issuance of a stop-work order pending new site plan approval, as it is clear that this was a discretionary determination, and the actions of the government in such instances are immune from lawsuits (see City of New York v. 17 Vista Assocs., 84 N.Y.2d 299; 154 E. Park Ave. Corp. v. City of Long Beach, 52 N.Y.2d 991, cert denied 454 U.S. 858; Sposato v. Village of Pelham, 275 A.D.2d 364).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.