Opinion
2013-03-27
David AVEZBAKIYEV, plaintiff-respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, defendant-respondent, Horizon At Forest Hills, LLC, et al., appellants.
Rutherford & Christie, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jon E. Newman of counsel), for appellants. Albert Cohen, Forest Hills, N.Y. (Charles Haviv of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Rutherford & Christie, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jon E. Newman of counsel), for appellants. Albert Cohen, Forest Hills, N.Y. (Charles Haviv of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein, Graham Morrison, and Mordicai Newman of counsel), for defendant-respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Horizon at Forest Hills, LLC, and Britt Realty Development Corp., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), dated October 17, 2011, which denied, as untimely, their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied, as untimely, the motion of the defendants Horizon at Forest Hills, LLC, and Britt Realty Development Corp. (hereinafter together the appellants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, since they failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay in making their motion for summary judgment ( see CPLR 3212[a]; Brill v. City of New York, 2 N.Y.3d 648, 781 N.Y.S.2d 261, 814 N.E.2d 431). Significant outstanding discovery may, in certain circumstances, constitute good cause for a delay in making a motion for summary judgment ( see Gonzalez v. 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 N.Y.2d 124, 711 N.Y.S.2d 131, 733 N.E.2d 203;Kung v. Zheng, 73 A.D.3d 862, 901 N.Y.S.2d 334;McArdle v. 123 Jackpot, Inc., 51 A.D.3d 743, 858 N.Y.S.2d 692;Sclafani v. Washington Mut., 36 A.D.3d 682, 829 N.Y.S.2d 553). Here, however, the discovery outstanding at the time the note of issue was filed was not essential to the appellants' motion ( see Greenpoint Props., Inc. v. Carter, 82 A.D.3d 1157, 919 N.Y.S.2d 370;Anderson v. Kantares, 51 A.D.3d 954, 857 N.Y.S.2d 511;Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Razy Assoc., 37 A.D.3d 702, 830 N.Y.S.2d 726;Espejo v. Hiro Real Estate Co., 19 A.D.3d 360, 796 N.Y.S.2d 162).
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.