OLIVIER v. RODNEY (2006)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated July 19, 2005, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the defendant demonstrated “good cause” for the late filing of her motion for summary judgment (Gonzalez v. 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 N.Y.2d 124, 129, 711 N.Y.S.2d 131, 733 N.E.2d 203;  see Herrera v. Felice Realty Corp., 22 A.D.3d 723, 804 N.Y.S.2d 397;  Kunz v. Gleeson, 9 A.D.3d 480, 781 N.Y.S.2d 50;  cf. Brill v. City of New York, 2 N.Y.3d 648, 781 N.Y.S.2d 261, 814 N.E.2d 431).   However, the defendant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.   The defendant did not come forward with expert medical evidence, in admissible form, to support her claim that there was a lack of a causal connection between the subject accident and all of the alleged injuries (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572;  Johnson v. Ladin, 18 A.D.3d 439, 794 N.Y.S.2d 441;  Ilardi v. Inte-Fac Corp., 290 A.D.2d 490, 736 N.Y.S.2d 401).   Under the circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiff's papers in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642;  Smith v. City of New York, 288 A.D.2d 369, 733 N.Y.S.2d 474;  Sipourene v. County of Nassau, 266 A.D.2d 450, 698 N.Y.S.2d 705).