While the motion court purported to deny renewal and reargument, it appears that the merits of the motion were addressed and that the court, in effect, granted reargument and renewal, even though it ultimately adhered to its original determination (see Freitas v. New York City Tr. Auth., 297 A.D.2d 270).
The denial of vacatur was a proper exercise of discretion in light of the unexplained delay of nearly three years in seeking such relief (see Credit Car Leasing Corp. v. Elan Group Corp., 185 A.D.2d 109; Komlosi v. State of New York, 288 A.D.2d 188) and the failure to offer proof of compliance with the policy provision requiring a sworn notice of claim (see Matter of Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v. Purvis, 198 A.D.2d 502) or any excuse for such non-compliance (see Galaxy Ins. Co. v. 1454 Nicholas Ave. Assocs., 276 A.D.2d 424). Absent a valid excuse, there was no coverage (see Paramount Ins. Co. v. Rosedale Gardens, Inc., 293 A.D.2d 235, 239), and, thus, no basis for any framed issue hearing.
We have considered appellant's other contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.