Opinion
15919 Index No. 152832/16 Case No. 2022–00262
05-10-2022
Noam BARAM et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Carl E. PERSON, Defendant–Respondent.
Carl E. Person, New York, appellant pro se.
Carl E. Person, New York, appellant pro se.
Renwick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Gesmer, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered July 7, 2021, which denied as untimely defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The court's sua sponte denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment as untimely was proper ( Ingram v. Association for Metroarea Autistic Children, Inc., 190 A.D.3d 458, 140 N.Y.S.3d 28 [1st Dept. 2021] ; Hettinger v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 193 A.D.3d 544, 142 N.Y.S.3d 353 [1st Dept. 2021] ). Defendant does not dispute that his motion, filed October 11, 2019, was untimely. He also does not dispute that he stated no reason for the delay when he filed the motion in October 2019 or at any time before the court issued its ruling in July 2021. "No excuse at all, or a perfunctory excuse, cannot be ‘good cause’ " ( Brill v. City of New York, 2 N.Y.3d 648, 652, 781 N.Y.S.2d 261, 814 N.E.2d 431 [2004] ). In any case, defendant's belatedly stated reasons for the delay, as set forth in a letter to the court after it issued its order, do not amount to good cause, as defendant merely cited the complexity of the case and his law firm's caseload.
In light of the foregoing, we do not reach the merits of defendant's motion.