Here, the court failed to permit the father to submit information concerning the statutory factors, and the record does not indicate whether the court considered them; thus, the court erred insofar as it granted the motion on that basis (seeGraves v. Huff [Appeal No. 2], 169 A.D.3d 1476, 1477, 93 N.Y.S.3d 764 [4th Dept. 2019] ). In any event, we conclude that the court erred in granting the motion inasmuch as the mother submitted no evidence in support of the motion and failed to specify any statutory or other legal basis for the requested relief (seeLaGuardia v. City of New York , 237 A.D.2d 257, 257, 655 N.Y.S.2d 395 [2d Dept. 1997] ; see alsoVillage of Sharon Springs v. Barr , 165 A.D.3d 1445, 1447, 86 N.Y.S.3d 244 [3d Dept. 2018] ; Matter of Goodyear v. New York State Dept. of Health , 163 A.D.3d 1427, 1428, 82 N.Y.S.3d 280 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 914, 2019 WL 637678 [2019] ). We note that the mother had several months to make a proper motion on notice to dismiss the enforcement petition, but she did not do so (see generally Matter ofClark v. Kittles , 160 A.D.3d 1420, 1421, 76 N.Y.S.3d 689 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 911, 2018 WL 3117896 [2018] ).

An affidavit contained in the papers on the motion for default judgment averred that notices were mailed to all delinquent taxpayers on the list, but petitioner did not submit any papers or affidavits in response to respondent's motion to vacate ( see CPLR 2214 [b] [permitting service of answering papers at least two days before the motion is noticed to be heard]). With only a generic affidavit on the default motion which applied to hundreds of property owners or interested parties, and without any affidavits, sworn testimony or other competent evidence to prove that petitioner mailed the notice of foreclosure to respondent at her actual mailing address or the last address listed in petitioner's records and that the records had been searched to verify that the mailings to respondent were not returned, County Court did not err in granting respondent's motion ( see LaGuardia v City of New York, 237 AD2d 257, 257; Kaiser v J S Realty, 173 AD2d 920, 921). By failing to file any papers opposing respondent's motion, petitioner similarly failed to preserve its affirmative defense that the motion was barred by the statute of limitations in RPTL 1131.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in entertaining the defendant's oral application for summary judgment, which was made after jury selection had been completed. The defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for its inordinate delay in seeking summary judgment (see CPLR 3212(a); Dono v. Bar Biz Rest. Equip. Corp., 292 A.D.2d 494; Caiola v. Allcity Ins. Co., 277 A.D.2d 273; Wagner v. City of New York, 271 A.D.2d 439; Scocozza v. Tolia, 262 A.D.2d 548). In any event, the application should have been denied because it was not supported by any motion papers on notice to the plaintiff (see CPLR 2214, 3212[b]; Amoco Oil Co. v. Lucadamo Sons, 260 A.D.2d 516; LaGuardia v. City of New York, 237 A.D.2d 257; Double A. Limousine Serv. v. New York, N.Y. Limousine Serv., 130 A.D.2d 403). ALTMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.

Following a hearing on the petitions, Family Court granted the grandmother's petition. Contrary to the contention of the mother, the court properly denied her oral motion to dismiss the grandmother's petition for failure to state a cause of action ( see LaGuardia v. City of New York, 237 A.D.2d 257) and her subsequent motion to dismiss the grandmother's petition at the conclusion of the grandmother's proof on that petition ( see Matter of Le Blanc v. Morrison, 288 A.D.2d 768, 769-770). The record supports the court's determination that the grandmother met her burden of proving that extraordinary circumstances exist to deprive the mother of her superior right to custody ( see Matter of Gary G. v. Roslyn P., 248 A.D.2d 980, 981; Matter of Michael G.B. v. Angela L.B., 219 A.D.2d 289, 291) and that the best interests of the child would be served by awarding primary physical custody to the grandmother.