Opinion
May 18, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the plaintiffs' motion to reargue was not untimely. Since the plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal from the original order, "reargument did not serve as a substitute for failure to timely take an appeal" ( Bermudez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 199 A.D.2d 356, 357). In addition, the motion to reargue was made within a reasonable time after the original order and prior to the submission of the appeal from that order ( see, Bray v. Gluck, 235 A.D.2d 72; Bermudez v. New York City Hous. Auth., supra).
Furthermore, summary judgment in favor of a defendant is generally precluded where, as here, the opinion of an expert establishes that a plaintiff's injuries were caused by a deviation from relevant industry standards ( see, Murphy v. City of Elmira, 84 N.Y.2d 969, 971; see also, Quinn v. K-Mart Corp., 224 A.D.2d 988).
Thompson, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.