Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order made upon reargument is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.
In its May 16, 1995, order, the Supreme Court failed to determine those branches of the plaintiffs' motion which were to compel the defendants to comply with certain discovery demands or, in the alternative, to strike the defendants' answer. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court adhered to its original decision, again failing to address those issues. The appeal from that portion of the order made upon reargument must be dismissed because those issues remain pending and undecided ( see, Katz v. Katz, 68 A.D.2d 536).
Further, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion to conditionally grant the plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendants' answer ( see, Harris v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 663).
Miller, J.P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.