OpinionReported below, 115 A.D.3d 506, 982 N.Y.S.2d 83.Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely (see Rules of Ct. of Appeals [22 NYCRR] § 500.24 [b] ) [see 24 N.Y.3d 1097, 2 N.Y.S.3d 64, 25 N.E.3d 978 (2015) ].

OpinionReported below, 115 A.D.3d 506, 982 N.Y.S.2d 83.Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Cohen, J.), entered August 25, 2022, which denied plaintiff's motion for default judgment, or, in the alternative, for leave to serve defendant by an alternate service method, and granted defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the action without prejudice, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff makes no substantive argument with respect to her default motion, and thus has waived any arguments regarding the merits of that motion on appeal (see e.g.Rozina v. Casa 74th Dev. LLC, 115 A.D.3d 506, 507, 982 N.Y.S.2d 83 [1st Dept. 2014], lv dismissed 24 N.Y.3d 1097, 2 N.Y.S.3d 64, 25 N.E.3d 978 [2015] ). In any event, the court providently denied the default motion based on plaintiff's incomplete service, her failure to submit a proper proof of service and her failure to submit proof of the merits of her claim ( Commissiong v. Mark Greenberg Real Estate Co. LLC, 203 A.D.3d 657, 657, 163 N.Y.S.3d 403 [1st Dept. 2022], lv dismissed 38 N.Y.3d 1119, 172 N.Y.S.3d 671, 192 N.E.3d 1150 [2022] ).

No express warranty was made in the purchase agreement. Moreover, any purported representation or warranty is refuted by the clear terms of the purchase agreement, which contains a merger clause, states that no representations are being made by the sponsor, that the unit was being purchased "as is" and that the onus was on the buyer to inspect "to determine the actual dimensions" prior to purchasing (seeRozina v. Casa 74th Dev. LLC, 115 A.D.3d 506, 982 N.Y.S.2d 83 [1st Dept. 2014], lv dismissed 24 N.Y.3d 1097, 2 N.Y.S.3d 64, 25 N.E.3d 978 [2015] ; Plaza PH2001 LLC v. Plaza Residential Owner, LP, 98 A.D.3d 89, 947 N.Y.S.2d 498 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Reasonable reliance is an element of claims for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation (seeBernstein v. Clermont Co., 166 A.D.2d 247, 564 N.Y.S.2d 105 [1st Dept. 1990] ; J.A.O. Acquisition Corp. v. Stavitsky, 8 N.Y.3d 144, 148, 831 N.Y.S.2d 364, 863 N.E.2d 585 [2007] ).

No express warranty was made in the purchase agreement. Moreover, any purported representation or warranty is refuted by the clear terms of the purchase agreement, which contains a merger clause, states that no representations are being made by the sponsor, that the unit was being purchased "as is" and that the onus was on the buyer to inspect "to determine the actual dimensions" prior to purchasing (seeRozina v. Casa 74th Dev. LLC, 115 A.D.3d 506, 982 N.Y.S.2d 83 [1st Dept. 2014], lv dismissed 24 N.Y.3d 1097, 2 N.Y.S.3d 64, 25 N.E.3d 978 [2015] ; Plaza PH2001 LLC v. Plaza Residential Owner, LP, 98 A.D.3d 89, 947 N.Y.S.2d 498 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Reasonable reliance is an element of claims for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation (seeBernstein v. Clermont Co., 166 A.D.2d 247, 564 N.Y.S.2d 105 [1st Dept. 1990] ; J.A.O. Acquisition Corp. v. Stavitsky, 8 N.Y.3d 144, 148, 831 N.Y.S.2d 364, 863 N.E.2d 585 [2007] ).