| St. John's Univ. v Butler Rogers Baskett Architects,P.C. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02236 [105 AD3d 728] |
| April 3, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| St. John's University, Respondent, v Butler RogersBaskett Architects, P.C., et al., Defendants, and Langan Engineering and EnvironmentalServices, Inc., P.C., Appellant. (And Third-Party Actions.) |
—[*1] Garfunkel Wild, P.C., Great Neck, N.Y. and Biedermann Hoenig Semprevivo, P.C.,New York, N.Y. (Peter W. Beadle of counsel), for respondent (one brief filed).
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, injury to property,engineering malpractice, and architectural malpractice, the defendant LanganEngineering and Environmental Services, Inc., P.C., appeals, as limited by its brief, from(1), so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grays, J.), dated June30, 2010, as denied, as untimely, its first motion for summary judgment dismissing statedportions of the complaint, and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated February14, 2011, as denied its second motion for summary judgment.
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied, as untimely, the first motion of the defendantLangan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., P.C. (hereinafter Langan) forsummary judgment dismissing stated portions of the complaint since Langan failed todemonstrate good cause for not filing the motion before the expiration of the 120-daydeadline set forth in CPLR 3212 (b) (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]).Contrary to Langan's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretionin declining to consider the good cause arguments raised for the first time in its replypapers (see Cabibel v XYZAssoc., L.P., 36 AD3d 498 [2007]), particularly in the absence of a surreplyfrom the plaintiff (see generallyMatter of Harleysville Ins. Co. v Rosario, 17 AD3d 677, 678 [2005];Johnston v Continental Broker-Dealer Corp., 287 AD2d 546 [2001]; Matterof TIG Ins. Co. v Pellegrini, 258 AD2d 658 [1999]). As Langan failed to otherwiseoffer any explanation for its delay in making the motion, the Supreme Court properlydenied the motion without consideration of the merits (see Giuliano v 666 Old CountryRd., LLC, 100 AD3d 960 [2012]; Buffolino v City of New York, 92 AD3d 633 [2012]; Derby v Bitan, 89 AD3d891, 892 [2011]; John P.Krupski & Bros., Inc. v Town Bd. of Town of Southold, 54 AD3d 899, 901[2008]).
The Supreme Court also properly denied Langan's second motion for summary [*2]judgment as violative of the rule against successive motionsfor summary judgment (seeBlanche, Verte & Blanche, Ltd. v Joseph Mauro & Sons, 91 AD3d 693 [2012];Kimber Mfg., Inc. vHanzus, 56 AD3d 615 [2008]). Eng, P.J., Dickerson, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.