Opinion
February 5, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated June 9, 1994, as denied the motion of the defendants Lee Gee Sook and Kyuing Seo Lee for reargument is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated June 9, 1994, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated March 21, 1994, is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.
The appellants' motion, denominated as a motion for renewal and reargument, was in actuality only for reargument (see, Matthews v. New York City Hous. Auth., 210 A.D.2d 205; Awadallah v. Russo, 205 A.D.2d 721). Accordingly, the appeal from so much of the order dated June 9, 1994, as denied that motion is dismissed.
The fact that a defendant "has disappeared or made himself unavailable provides no basis for denying a motion to strike his answer" for failure to appear at a deposition (Foti v. Suero, 97 A.D.2d 748; see, Spataro v. Ervin, 186 A.D.2d 793; Mills v Ducille, 170 A.D.2d 657; Moriates v. Powertest Petroleum Co., 114 A.D.2d 888). Accordingly, the appellants' answers were properly stricken. Rosenblatt, J.P., Hart, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.