STRANSKY v. TANNENBAUM (1999)

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, etc., (1) the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), entered April 6, 1998, as denied that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) the plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of the same order, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to serve a supplemental verified bill of particulars.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

 The defendants' cross motion was properly denied as untimely under the recent amendment to CPLR 3212(a) which requires that a motion for summary judgment “shall be made no later than [120] days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown” (L.1996, ch. 492, eff. Jan. 1, 1997).   Where, as here, the note of issue predates the January 1, 1997, effective date of the amendment, the moving party is required to make the motion no later than 120 days after January 1, 1997 (see, Rich v. Ciano, 254 A.D.2d 268, 678 N.Y.S.2d 381;  DiFusco v. Wal-Mart Discount Cities, 255 A.D.2d 937, 680 N.Y.S.2d 377;  Phoenix Garden Restaurant v. Chu, 245 A.D.2d 164, 165, 667 N.Y.S.2d 20).   Here, the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment was dated November 3, 1997, after the 120-day period had expired and the defendants failed to show good cause for their belated motion.

The plaintiffs' application to supplement their bill of particulars was properly denied (see, Crimmins Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 74 N.Y.2d 166, 170, 544 N.Y.S.2d 580, 542 N.E.2d 1097;  Dos v. Scelsa & Villacara, 200 A.D.2d 705, 707, 607 N.Y.S.2d 68;  Stroock & Stroock & Lavan v. Beltramini, 157 A.D.2d 590, 550 N.Y.S.2d 337;  JIHL Assocs. v. Frank, 137 A.D.2d 655, 657, 524 N.Y.S.2d 749;  Scarangello v. State of New York, 111 A.D.2d 798, 490 N.Y.S.2d 781).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.