Defendant also failed to submit an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge of the efforts it made to locate the requested materials ( Henderson v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 16 N.Y.3d 886, 887–888, 924 N.Y.S.2d 317, 948 N.E.2d 923 [2011] ). Furthermore, defendant's proper recourse was to appeal from the order dated June 16, 2020 ( Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. NHT Owners LLC, 115 A.D.3d 551, 982 N.Y.S.2d 451 [1st Dept. 2014] ) or to move to vacate the default in providing the discovery ( Mehler v. Jones, 181 A.D.3d 535, 535–536, 121 N.Y.S.3d 39 [1st Dept. 2020] ). We reject defendant's contention that the court improperly sanctioned it for the noncompliance of other entities that were no longer parties in the action.

Plaintiff failed to move to vacate the court's prior discovery orders within a reasonable time ( CPLR 5015 ; seeNash v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 22 N.Y.3d 220, 225, 980 N.Y.S.2d 880, 3 N.E.3d 1128 [2013] ), and he has not explained his delay in moving (seeCohn v. Nationstar Mtge. LLC, 187 A.D.3d 499, 500, 130 N.Y.S.3d 308 [1st Dept. 2020] ). In any event, there was no basis under CPLR 5015 to vacate the orders, and indeed, plaintiff's motion failed to specify any grounds for relief under the statute (seeTower Ins. Co. N.Y. v. NHT Owners LLC, 115 A.D.3d 551, 551, 982 N.Y.S.2d 451 [1st Dept. 2014] ). Plaintiff was provided sufficient notice that sanctions could result from his noncompliance, and the court providently exercised its discretion in imposing limited preclusion (seeRosengarten v. Born, 161 A.D.3d 515, 515, 76 N.Y.S.3d 549 [1st Dept. 2018] ).

Plaintiff failed to move to vacate the court's prior discovery orders within a reasonable time (CPLR 5015; see Nash v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 22 N.Y.3d 220, 225 [2013]), and he has not explained his delay in moving (see Cohn v Nationstar Mtge. LLC, 187 A.D.3d 499, 500 [1st Dept 2020]). In any event, there was no basis under CPLR 5015 to vacate the orders, and indeed, plaintiff's motion failed to specify any grounds for relief under the statute (see Tower Ins. Co. N.Y. v NHT Owners LLC, 115 A.D.3d 551, 551 [1st Dept 2014]). Plaintiff was provided sufficient notice that sanctions could result from his noncompliance, and the court providently exercised its discretion in imposing limited preclusion (see Rosengarten v Born, 161 A.D.3d 515, 515 [1st Dept 2018]).

Plaintiff failed to move to vacate the court's prior discovery orders within a reasonable time (CPLR 5015; see Nash v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 22 N.Y.3d 220, 225 [2013]), and he has not explained his delay in moving (see Cohn v Nationstar Mtge. LLC, 187 A.D.3d 499, 500 [1st Dept 2020]). In any event, there was no basis under CPLR 5015 to vacate the orders, and indeed, plaintiff's motion failed to specify any grounds for relief under the statute (see Tower Ins. Co. N.Y. v NHT Owners LLC, 115 A.D.3d 551, 551 [1st Dept 2014]). Plaintiff was provided sufficient notice that sanctions could result from his noncompliance, and the court providently exercised its discretion in imposing limited preclusion (see Rosengarten v Born, 161 A.D.3d 515, 515 [1st Dept 2018]).