Opinion
October 3, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated May 21, 1993, is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated March 17, 1993, is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the order dated May 21, 1993, must be dismissed because, although the defendant denominated the motion as one for renewal and reargument, the motion court properly treated it as a motion to reargue. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, DeFreitas v. Board of Educ., 129 A.D.2d 672, 673).
Although generally the courts favor the determination of controversies on their merits, in order to be entitled to vacatur of a default judgment, it is incumbent upon the defendant to show that the default was excusable, and that he or she has a meritorious defense (see, Abrams v. Abrams, 56 A.D.2d 775). The defendant's "excuse" for his default amounted to no more than his own failure to keep himself apprised of his court dates. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in concluding that this was not a reasonable excuse. The defendant's affidavit and exhibits also fail to demonstrate a meritorious defense (see, James v Hoffman, 158 A.D.2d 398). We therefore find that the Supreme Court, Queens County, properly denied the defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment. Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.