HUERTA v. LONGO

Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiff Rosalba Rojas is dismissed, as that plaintiff is not aggrieved by the portions of the order appealed from ( see CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiff Joseph O. Huerta; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants. The defendants demonstrated good cause for their delay in making a motion for summary judgment, and the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in entertaining the late motion ( see CPLR 3212 [a]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725, 726-727; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652; Kunz v Gleeson, 9 AD3d 480, 481). On the merits, the defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Joseph O. Huerta did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident ( see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 98 NY2d 345; Gaddy v Eyler, 79 NY2d 955, 956-957). Huerta's opposition, consisting solely of an affirmation of his attorney, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Jefferson v Village of Ossining, 18 AD3d 502, 503).