Opinion
October 27, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Elliot Wilk, J.).
Plaintiff fails to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the defaults and a meritorious claim, the action being nothing more than an effort to revive claims based upon the same facts alleged in a previously dismissed action ( Kliebert v. McKoan, 228 A.D.2d 232, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 802), but now asserted in the guise of different legal theories ( see, Matter of Sud v. Sud, 227 A.D.2d 319; Corto v. Lefrak, 203 A.D.2d 94 lv dismissed 86 N.Y.2d 774; Couri v. Westchester Country Club, 186 A.D.2d 715, lv dismissed and denied 81 N.Y.2d 912). We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.