Avezbakiyev v City of New York
2013 NY Slip Op 02036 [104 AD3d 888]
March 27, 2013
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 24, 2013


David Avezbakiyev, Respondent,
v
City of NewYork, Respondent, and Horizon At Forest Hills, LLC, et al.,Appellants.

[*1]Rutherford & Christie, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jon E. Newman of counsel), forappellants.

Albert Cohen, Forest Hills, N.Y. (Charles Haviv of counsel), forplaintiff-respondent.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein,Graham Morrison, and Mordicai Newman of counsel), fordefendant-respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Horizon atForest Hills, LLC, and Britt Realty Development Corp., appeal from an order of theSupreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), dated October 17, 2011, which denied, asuntimely, their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all crossclaims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied, as untimely, the motion of the defendantsHorizon at Forest Hills, LLC, and Britt Realty Development Corp. (hereinafter togetherthe appellants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claimsinsofar as asserted against them, since they failed to demonstrate good cause for the delayin making their motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2NY3d 648 [2004]). Significant outstanding discovery may, in certain circumstances,constitute good cause for a delay in making a motion for summary judgment (seeGonzalez v 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 NY2d 124 [2000]; Kung v Zheng, 73 AD3d862 [2010]; McArdle v 123Jackpot, Inc., 51 AD3d 743 [2008]; Sclafani v Washington Mut., 36 AD3d 682 [2007]). Here,however, the discovery outstanding at the time the note of issue was filed was notessential to the appellants' motion (see Greenpoint Props., Inc. v Carter, 82 AD3d 1157[2011]; Anderson vKantares, 51 AD3d 954 [2008]; Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Razy Assoc., 37 AD3d 702[2007]; Espejo v Hiro RealEstate Co., 19 AD3d 360 [2005]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.Mastro, J.P., Austin, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.