The motion court properly denied defendant Kenyon's cross motion for summary judgment as untimely since it was not served within the, time frame set by the court pursuant to CPLR 3212 (a) and because Kenyon failed to demonstrate good cause for consideration of the late cross motion. Questions of fact as to the work proximately causing plaintiffs injuries warranted denial of summary judgment in favor of any of the manufacturers or repairers ( see, Bral v. City of New York, 221 A.D.2d 283). All of the successor corporation issues were properly resolved ( see, Sweatland v. Park corp., 181 A.D.2d 243, 245-246). We have considered appellants' remaining arguments and find them to be unavailing.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Williams, Wallach and Tom, JJ.