Opinion
490
March 13, 2003.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered March 27, 2002, which, in an action to recover a loan, denied plaintiff's motion to vacate a judgment entered November 13, 1995 upon plaintiff's default in opposing a motion by the individual defendants to dismiss the action as against them for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Pro Se, for appellant.
Patricia Mandel, for defendants-respondents.
Before: Buckley, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Lerner, Marlow, JJ.
Plaintiff's motion was properly denied for lack of a reasonable explanation why, having been granted leave in January 1996 to renew his motion to vacate his default, he did not take advantage of that leave for some five years (CPLR 5015[a][1]; see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 N.Y.2d 138, 141). We note that plaintiff no longer appears to claim that the individual defendants guaranteed the loan in issue, but that they should be held liable for fraud. This new claim of fraud is barred by the statute of limitations (CPLR 203[g], 213; 203[f]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.