| Town of Kinderhook v Slovak |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00313 [47 AD3d 1093] |
| January 17, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Town of Kinderhook, Respondent, v Faith Slovak, Also Known asEdith Slovak, et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Maney, McConville & Liccardi, East Greenbush (Edward P. McConville of counsel), forrespondent.
Spain, J. Appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Egan, Jr., J.), entered March16, 2006 in Columbia County, which granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgmentdismissing certain affirmative defenses, and (2) from an order of said court (Donohue, J.),entered April 20, 2007 in Columbia County, which, among other things, denied defendants'motion for reconsideration.
In this action by plaintiff to enforce its zoning laws, we affirm the judgment of SupremeCourt (Egan, Jr., J.), entered March 16, 2006, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summaryjudgment dismissing some of defendants' affirmative defenses, insofar as defendants appealedfrom, for reasons stated in the court's thorough written decision.
With regard to defendants' appeal from the order of Supreme Court (Donohue, J.), enteredApril 20, 2007, we find that the court correctly denied defendants' motion to renew[FN*][*2]given their failure to submit proof "that would change theprior determination" (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). The court also properly denied defendants' belatedmotion for summary judgment as untimely, as it was made after the August 28, 2006 deadline forsuch motions as set forth in the court's (Egan, Jr., J.) April 13, 2006 scheduling order (seeCPLR 3212 [a] ["the court may set a date after which no such motion may be made"]).Defendants never established lack of awareness of the deadline or any reason for their failure toseek an extension of time to file the motion; the court made no finding of good cause for thedelay and we discern none (see Brill vCity of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]; Rahman v Domber, 45 AD3d 497 [2007]; cf. Burnell v Huneau, 1 AD3d758, 760 [2003]). Thus, it was within the wide latitude of discretion afforded to SupremeCourt to deny the motion as untimely.
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment andorder are affirmed, without costs.
Footnote *: As no appeal lies from thedenial of a motion to reargue (see Ireland v Wilenzik, 296 AD2d 771, 773 [2002]), thatportion of defendants' appeal which sought review of the denial of their motion for reargumentmust be dismissed.