The general merger clause in the lease precludes plaintiff tenant's claim that he relied on oral representations by the predecessor landlord ( see, Calligar v Fradkoff, 154 A.D.2d 495, 498). Plaintiff's attempt to reform this agreement made between sophisticated parties, after arm's length negotiation, is not supported by adequate evidence of mutual mistake ( see, CrossLand Sav. v Loguidice-Chatwal Real Estate Inv. Co., 171 A.D.2d 457).
Plaintiff has not made a timely motion for leave to appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, entered December 6, 1994 in 25 W. 43rd St. Co. v Sioris. Since no appeal from that order is before us, we do not consider plaintiff's argument that that order should be reversed. The motion "to vacate or resettle" the prior order was properly deemed one for reargument, the denial of which is nonappealable ( see, Bowen v Sherwood Sec. Corp., 189 A.D.2d 592).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.