Majority
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
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 AD3d 699 [1st Dept 2012]; Pannone v Silberstein, 40 AD3d 327 [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 NY3d 514 , 521 [2005], citing, inter alia, Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]; Gaffney v BFP 300 Madison II, LLC, 18 AD3d 403 [1st Dept 2005] [defendant’s failure to produce witness for deposition in timely fashion constituted good cause for plaintiff’s late summary judgment motion]).
Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.
Cases cited
- 11 Essex Street Corp. v. Tower Insurance 96 AD3d 699 p. 614
- Andrea v. Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects & Landscape Architects, P.C. 5 NY3d 514 at 521 p. 614
- Gaffney v. BFP 300 Madison II, LLC 18 AD3d 403 p. 614