DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated March 26, 2002, as denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from the denial of a motion for leave to reargue; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated March 26, 2002, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated October 25, 2001, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendants upon their default in appearing or answering and in denying the defendants' cross motion to compel the plaintiff to accept their answer, given their failure to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default (see Martyn v. Jones, 166 A.D.2d 508; Peters v. Pickard, 143 A.D.2d 81, 82; cf. Hazen v. Bottiglieri, 286 A.D.2d 708; Miles v. Blue Label Trucking, 232 A.D.2d 382, 383).
Further, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was for leave to renew, as it was based on evidence that could have been discovered earlier with due diligence (see CPLR 2221[e]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Taddeo, 285 A.D.2d 503), or would not have altered the outcome on the underlying motion (see Young v. Augros, Inc., 269 A.D.2d 594; Amodeo v. State of New York, 257 A.D.2d 748, 749; Suffolk Nassau Amusement Co. v. Wurlitzer Co., 24 A.D.2d 893, 894).
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, CRANE and MASTRO, JJ., concur.