Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered November 22, 2004, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and from an order of the same court and Judge, dated March 7, 2005, which deemed plaintiffs' motion to vacate the prior order as one for reargument and, so considered, denied the motion.

PER CURIAM:

Order (Cynthia S. Kern, J.) entered November 22, 2004, affirmed, with $10 costs. Appeal from order (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), dated March 7, 2005, dismissed, without costs.

The complaint was appropriately dismissed for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery. Notwithstanding the policy of favoring resolution of actions on their merits, plaintiffs and their counsel have exhibited a pattern of conduct, in willfully ignoring court-ordered discovery, that cannot be explained away by "law office failure" (Owaid v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 645 [2004]; Rossodimou v Szpilzinger, 238 AD2d 568 [1997]), particularly given the record evidence of plaintiffs' repeated disregard of communications from their outgoing attorney. In the circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in Civil Court's decision to dismiss the complaint (see McDonald v Lengel, 1 AD3d 774 [2003]; Stepney v New York City Housing Authority, 161 AD2d 525 [1990]). Moreover, the court correctly viewed the motion giving rise to the March 7, 2005 order as one for reargument, denial of which is not appealable (see Federation of Puerto Rican Orgs. Of Brownsville v Mateo, 235 AD2d 326 [1997], lv dismissed 90 NY2d 844 [1997].
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
I concur