The order entered February 7, 2020, did not decide a motion made upon notice, and as such, no appeal lies as of right therefrom (see CPLR 5701[a][2]; Davidson Metals Corp. v Marlo Dev. Co., 262 A.D.2d 599, 599; Sherwood v Roper, 237 A.D.2d 275, 276). No application has been made for permission to appeal, and, under the circumstances of this case, leave to appeal is not granted (see CPLR 5701[c]; Sherwood v Roper, 237 A.D.2d at 276; Roberts v Modica, 102 A.D.2d 886, 886).

The order appealed from did not decide a motion made on notice and, as such, is not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701[a][2] ; see alsoKelleher v. Mt. Kisco Med. Group, 264 A.D.2d 760, 761, 694 N.Y.S.2d 770 ). No application was made for permission to appeal, and we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal under the circumstances of this case (see CPLR 5701[c] ; Sherwood v. Roper, 237 A.D.2d 275, 276, 655 N.Y.S.2d 378 ; Matter of Hartman v. Smith, 207 A.D.2d 345, 346, 616 N.Y.S.2d 207 ; Barry/Dave/Glenn, Inc. v. Salkowitz, 181 A.D.2d 754, 755, 581 N.Y.S.2d 687 ). In light of the foregoing, we dismiss the appeal.

. No application was made for permission to appeal, and we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal under the circumstances of this case (see CPLR 5701[c]; Sherwood v Roper, 237 A.D.2d 275, 276; Matter of Hartman v Smith, 207 A.D.2d 345, 346; Barry/Dave/Glenn, Inc. v Salkowitz, 181 A.D.2d 754, 755). In light of the foregoing, we dismiss the appeal.

The order appealed from did not decide a motion made upon notice, and no appeal as of right lies therefrom ( see, Sherwood v. Roper, 237 A.D.2d 275, 276; Matter of Hartman v. Smith, 207 A.D.2d 345, 346). No application has been made for permission to appeal.

The order entered June 8, 1998, did not decide a motion made upon notice and is not appealable as of right ( see, CPLR 5701[a]). No application has been made for permission to appeal, and we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal under the circumstances of this case ( see, Sherwood v. Roper, 237 A.D.2d 275; Matter of Hartman v. Smith, 207 A.D.2d 345). O'BRIEN, J.P., RITTER, JOY, ALTMAN, and SMITH, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine the validity of service upon the defendant Reynold Mason. The order appealed from did not decide a motion on notice, and, thus, is not appealable as of right ( see, Rassaei v. Kessler, 252 A.D.2d 577; Sherwood v. Roper, 237 A.D.2d 275). However, under the circumstances, and in light of the obvious procedural irregularities that resulted in an order dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Reynold Mason due to allegedly improper service upon him without a full hearing on the record, we exercise our discretion to reverse the order, and remit this matter for a hearing, on the record, to determine the validity of service upon Mason.

The order appealed from did not decide a motion made on notice and is therefore not appealable as of right ( see, CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; Aievoli v. Aievoli, 249 A.D.2d 253; Sherwood v. Roper, 237 A.D.2d 275). No application has been made for permission to appeal, and we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal under the circumstances of this case, considering the sparseness of the record ( see, Aievoli v. Aievoli, supra; Matter of Hartman v. Smith, 207 A.D.2d 345).

Accordingly, that branch of the order which continued the temporary restraining order is also not appealable as of right ( see, CPLR 5701 [a] [2]). Under the circumstances, we decline to grant permission to appeal ( see, Aievoli v. Aievoli, 249 A.D.2d 253; Sherwood v. Roper, 237 A.D.2d 275). Copertino, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

The order appealed from did not decide a motion made on notice. No appeal as of right lies therefrom (see, CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; Sherwood v. Roper, 237 A.D.2d 275). No application has been made for permission to appeal, nor are we inclined to grant leave to appeal under the circumstances of this case, considering the sparseness of the record (see, Matter of Bergmann v. Berger, 218 A.D.2d 768; Matter of Hartman v. Smith, 207 A.D.2d 345).

The order appealed from did not decide a motion made on notice and, as such, is not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701[a][2]; see also Kelleher v Mt. Kisco Med. Group, 264 A.D.2d 760, 761). No application was made for permission to appeal, and we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal under the circumstances of this case (see CPLR 5701[c]; Sherwood v Roper, 237 A.D.2d 275, 276; Matter of Hartman v Smith, 207 A.D.2d 345, 346; Barry/Dave/Glenn, Inc. v Salkowitz, 181 A.D.2d 754, 755). In light of the foregoing, we dismiss the appeal.