Opinion
11-29-2016
Frank BENI, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. GREEN 485 TIC LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants. [And a Third–Party Action].
Barry, McTiernan & Moore LLC, New York (Laurel A. Wedinger of counsel), for appellants. Jaroslawicz & Jaros PLLC, New York (David Tolchin of counsel), for respondents.
Barry, McTiernan & Moore LLC, New York (Laurel A. Wedinger of counsel), for appellants.
Jaroslawicz & Jaros PLLC, New York (David Tolchin of counsel), for respondents.
Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered on or about April 14, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion to strike the note of issue and certificate of readiness and to extend the time to file dispositive motions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly declined to strike the note of issue because, contrary to defendants' contention, the certificate of readiness did not contain any erroneous facts about the state of discovery (see 11 Essex St. Corp. v. Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 96 A.D.3d 699, 948 N.Y.S.2d 47 [1st Dept.2012] ; Pannone v. Silberstein, 40 A.D.3d 327, 837 N.Y.S.2d 9 [1st Dept.2007] ).
The court also properly declined to extend defendants' time to move for summary judgment, because the delays in the discovery process were caused largely by defendants' own dilatory conduct and therefore did not constitute “good cause” for an extension (see Andrea v. Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects & Landscape Architects, P.C. [Habiterra Assoc.], 5 N.Y.3d 514, 521, 806 N.Y.S.2d 453, 840 N.E.2d 565 [2005], citing, inter alia, Brill v. City of New York, 2 N.Y.3d 648, 781 N.Y.S.2d 261, 814 N.E.2d 431 [2004] ; Gaffney v. BFP 300 Madison II, LLC, 18 A.D.3d 403, 795 N.Y.S.2d 579 [1st Dept.2005] [defendant's failure to produce witness for deposition in timely fashion constituted good cause for plaintiff's late summary judgment motion] ).
FRIEDMAN, J.P., SWEENY, SAXE, KAPNICK, GESMER, JJ., concur.