Eric Nelson, Staten Island, NY, for appellant.

Lorenzo A. DeLuca, Staten Island, NY, for respondent.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Charles M. Troia, J.), dated March 16, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to strike the answer of the defendant Spec-U III, LLC, as untimely, and for leave to renew that branch of his prior motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated February 27, 2020, and for an order of reference.

Ordered that the order dated March 16, 2021, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In 2007, the defendant Robert Baselice executed a note in favor of the plaintiff, Richard Terranova, which was secured by a mortgage on certain real property located in Staten Island. In 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, Baselice and the defendant Spec-U III, LLC (hereinafter Spec-U III), which was the holder of a fourth mortgage on the subject property. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against Spec-U III and for an order of reference. In an order dated February 27, 2020, the Supreme Court, among other things, denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion. Spec-U III then interposed an answer dated April 2, 2020.

On May 27, 2020, the plaintiff moved to strike Spec-U III's answer as untimely and for leave to renew his prior motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against Spec-U III and for an order of reference (hereinafter the May 2020 motion). In support of the May 2020 motion, the plaintiff submitted, among other things, his own affidavit and an affirmation from his attorney. However, the plaintiff did not submit copies of the complaint or the papers submitted on his prior motion, or reference those documents by giving their docket numbers on the e-filing system.

In an order dated March 16, 2021, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied those branches of the May 2020 motion which were to strike the answer of Spec-U III as untimely, and for leave to renew that branch of the plaintiff's prior motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant and for an order of reference, because the plaintiff failed to attach the pleadings and supporting documents to the May 2020 motion. The [*2]plaintiff appeals.

The Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the May 2020 motion which were to strike the answer of Spec-U III as untimely, and for leave to renew that branch of the plaintiff's prior motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant and for an order of reference. "There is no authority for compelling [a court] to consider papers which were not submitted in connection with the motion on which it is ruling; indeed, under CPLR 2214 (c), the court may refuse to consider improperly submitted papers" (Loeb v Tanenbaum, 124 AD2d 941, 942 [1986]). "Pursuant to CPLR 2214 (c), a party in an e-filed action may rely on e-filed papers and need not include those papers in its motion papers, but may make reference to them, giving the docket numbers on the e-filing system" (Reardon v Macy's, Inc., 191 AD3d 712, 714 [2021] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Eastern Funding LLC v San Jose 63 Corp., 172 AD3d 818, 819 [2019]). Here, the plaintiff's submissions in support of the May 2020 motion that were included in the record on appeal failed to reference any docket numbers on the e-filing system corresponding to the previously filed papers for the prior motion or for the complaint (see CPLR 2214 [c]; Reardon v Macy's, Inc., 191 AD3d at 714; Eastern Funding LLC v San Jose 63 Corp., 172 AD3d at 819).

The parties' remaining contentions either are not properly before this Court or need not be reached in light of our determination. Connolly, J.P., Miller, Wooten and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Motion by the respondent, inter alia, to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated March 16, 2021, on the ground that the order denied the appellant's motion, in effect, for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated April 8, 2022, that branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order denied the appellant's motion, in effect, for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable, was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order denied the appellant's motion, in effect, for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable, is denied.