Summary judgment is granted only when it affirmatively appears from the pleadings and the evidence that the movant is entitled to prevail. Id. Moreover, even if the trial court considered evidence which was not timely filed, Taylor did not object, so this provides no basis for reversal. Wilson v. Valentine, 199 Ga. App. 244, 245 ( 404 S.E.2d 600) (1991). 4. Taylor contends the facts demonstrate that he did not engage in abusive litigation as Renn's attorney pursuant to OCGA § 51-7-80 et seq. because he acted without malice, with substantial justification, and in good faith in filing the adultery counterclaim based on facts supplied by Renn, in pursuing discovery in further support of the claim, and in subsequently withdrawing the adultery allegation after receiving responses to the discovery.
]" McGivern v. First Capital Income Properties, Ltd., 188 Ga. App. 716, 717 (1) ( 373 S.E.2d 817) (1988). See also Ackerman Co. v. Lostocco, 216 Ga. App. 242, 244 ( 454 S.E.2d 792) (1995); Wilson v. Valentine, 199 Ga. App. 244 (1) ( 404 S.E.2d 600) (1991). On an unopposed motion for summary judgment, the court must still determine if, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
" (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Wilson v. Valentine, 199 Ga. App. 244 (1) ( 404 S.E.2d 600) (1991). Accordingly, assuming that the state court disregarded materials filed after the 30-day period expired, we must determine whether there was sufficient evidence to defeat Lostocco's motion prior to the filing of Ackerman's response. Clearly there was not sufficient evidence to withstand the motion for summary judgment.
' [Cit.]" Wilson v. Valentine, 199 Ga. App. 244 (1), 245 ( 404 S.E.2d 600) (1991). Nonetheless, even if the motion for summary judgment was granted for an erroneous reason, it will be affirmed if it should have been granted for another reason.
See generally MARTA v. Allen, 188 Ga. App. 902 (7) ( 374 S.E.2d 761) (1988). Here, as in Wilson v. Valentine, 199 Ga. App. 244, 245 (3) ( 404 S.E.2d 600) (1991), "the evidence of record ... including [Whitener's] own testimony, conclusively negates any allegation that the collision was proximately caused by negligence on the part of the [appellee] and establishes as a matter of law that [Whitener] simply drove directly into [the appellee's] vehicle [while making a left turn into oncoming traffic]." 3. Although the appellee filed a cross-appeal challenging the trial court's grant of a directed verdict against him on his claim for punitive damages, he has indicated to this court that he does not desire to pursue this appeal in the event the verdict and judgment of the trial court is affirmed.