Appeal by defendant Frank J. Castro from so much of an order of the Civil Court, Queens County (K. Kerrigan, J.), entered May 1, 2002, as denied his motion, denominated as one for reargument and/or renewal, but which was, in effect, for reargument of a prior order which denied his motion to vacate a default judgment.

Appeal unanimously dismissed.

After the court denied the pro se motion by defendant Frank J. Castro to, inter alia, vacate the default judgment entered against him, his counsel made a motion seeking, among other things, reargument and/or renewal. The court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

In support of the branch of his motion which sought renewal, Castro did not offer new evidence which was unavailable at the time of his original motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]). Nor did he offer a reasonable excuse for his failure to submit such evidence in support of his original motion (see CPLR 2221 [e]). As a result, although the motion was denominated as one for reargument and/or renewal, in effect, the motion only sought reargument (see Boboyev v Gomez, 304 AD2d 600, 601 [2003]; Holmes v Hanson, 286 AD2d 750 [2001]; Baciu v City Univ. of N.Y., 283 AD2d 447 [2001]; Muro v Bay Ready Mix & Supplies, 282 AD2d 584 [2001]). [*2]Inasmuch as no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for reargument (see Malik v Campbell, 289 AD2d 540 [2001]), the instant appeal must be dismissed.
Decision Date: December 17, 2003