HFA's omission of several of the pleadings in its papers in support of its motion is not fatal in the present circumstances where such papers were submitted on the earlier motion and appeal, and the record on the instant appeal has been expanded to include these filings (see Stiber v. Cotrone, 153 A.D.2d 1006, 1007, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 703; Ayer v. Sky Club, 70 A.D.2d 863, 864, appeal dismissed 48 N.Y.2d 705). In addition, since the motion addressed a threshold, potentially determinative issue, its consideration in advance of trial was in the interest of judicial economy (see Cruz v. City of New York, 292 A.D.2d 209;Baijnauth v. City of New York, 286 A.D.2d 254; Goodman v. Gudi, 264 A.D.2d 758). We further note that the motion was not made on the eve of trial, and thus neither disrupted the court's calendar nor left the codefendants without adequate time to frame a response (see Cruz, 292 A.D.2d at 209).
After a review of the record, we disagree and reverse. Initially, we find that the motion court, which is afforded wide latitude in exercising its discretion to entertain a late motion for summary judgment, improvidently exercised that discretion, where, as here, the delay of just over one month was minimal, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the delay and, because the motion addressed a potentially determinative matter, its consideration was warranted in advance of trial in the interest of judicial economy (see Garrison v. City of New York, 300 A.D.2d 14, 15, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 510, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 360; Cruz v. City of New York, 292 A.D.2d 209; Luciano v. Apple Maintenance Servs., Inc., 289 A.D.2d 90, 90-91).
Although the court properly exercised its discretion, under the circumstances, in entertaining defendant's untimely motion for summary judgment (CPLR 3212[a]; see Cruz v. City of New York, 292 A.D.2d 209; Luciano v. Apple Maintenance Serv., 289 A.D.2d 90), it erred in dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff's introduction of the abnormal results of several objective medical tests, along with his own affidavit, supported his allegation of a permanent limited range of motion of the cervical and lumbar spine and conflicted with defendant's initial prima facie showing of no objective medical basis for plaintiff's alleged injury.