Opinion
November 28, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.).
Ordered that the appeals from the orders dated February 20, 1990, are dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated February 6, 1991, is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the decision dated February 6, 1991, is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated August 6, 1991, is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated January 3, 1992, is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
The appeals from the three orders dated February 20, 1990, are dismissed as untimely taken (see, CPLR 5513; Hecht v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 57). The notice of appeal was filed approximately two years after the plaintiffs served notices of entry of these orders. Moreover, the appellants are not aggrieved by the order dated February 20, 1990, which, inter alia, denied the plaintiffs' motion for disclosure.
The appeal from the order dated February 6, 1991, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order entered upon the default of the appealing party (see, Hurley v. State of New York, 200 A.D.2d 715; Matter of Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v. Serrano, 181 A.D.2d 731; CPLR 5511). In any event, the appeal was untimely taken (see, CPLR 5513; Hecht v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 57, 61, supra). The appeal from the decision dated February 6, 1991, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see, Galleria Assocs. v Stevens, 208 A.D.2d 590).
The order dated August 6, 1991, is not appealable as of right since the court did not decide the appellants' motion to vacate the February 6, 1991, order but held the matter in abeyance (see, Matter of Fritsch v. Westchester County Dept. of Transp., 170 A.D.2d 602; Abrahamsen v. Brockway Glass Co., 119 A.D.2d 612).
In the order dated January 3, 1992, the Supreme Court denied the appellants' motion to vacate the February 6, 1991, order which granted, upon their default, the plaintiffs' motion to strike their answer due to their failure to comply with discovery demands. We find that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the appellants' motion on the ground that they failed to offer an adequate excuse for their default (see, e.g., Montauk Automatic v. Munhall, 201 A.D.2d 710; Pagones v Maddox, 199 A.D.2d 483). Accordingly, we affirm the order dated January 3, 1992. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, O'Brien and Krausman, JJ., concur.