| Blay v Frost |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01771 [126 AD3d 659] |
| March 4, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Stewart Blay, Appellant, v Nancy GordonFrost, Respondent, et al., Defendant. |
Noah Arenstein, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.
Joel B. Rudin, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffappeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, KingsCounty (Pfau, J.), dated April 18, 2014, as denied that branch of his motion which waspursuant to CPLR 2004, in effect, to extend the time in which to conduct hisdeposition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In exercising its discretion to grant an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 2004, acourt may consider such factors as the length of the delay, the reason or excuse for thedelay, and any prejudice to the opponent of the motion (see Tewari vTsoutsouras, 75 NY2d 1, 11-12 [1989]). Here, the Supreme Court providentlyexercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was, ineffect, to extend the time in which to conduct his deposition, since the plaintiff's ownfailure to comply with discovery demands hampered the defendant Nancy Gordon Frost'sability to conduct his deposition. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to show good cause forthe past delay and that Frost would not be prejudiced as a result of that delay (seeDhaliwal v Long Boat Taxi, 305 AD2d 449, 449 [2003]; Carota v MassapequaUnion Free School Dist., 272 AD2d 428, 428 [2000]; Versatile Furniture Prods.v 32-8 Maujer Realty, 97 AD2d 463, 463 [1983]).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit or need not be reached in lightof our determination. Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Dickerson and Miller, JJ., concur.