GALDAMEZ v. BIORDI

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in holding that plaintiff's met their burden of demonstrating the prerequisites for class action certification under CPLR 901 and 902 ( see Ackerman v Price Waterhouse, 252 AD2d 179, 191). Contrary to defendants' contention, plaintiff's sufficiently established that the class was so numerous that joinder of all members was impracticable ( see Pesantez v Boyle Envtl. Servs., 251 AD2d 11; see also Robidoux v Celani, 987 F2d 931, 935-936), and the court properly considered affidavits from several members of the proposed class submitted on reply since the affidavits were in response to matters raised in defendants' opposition ( see Ticor Tit. Guar. Co. v Bajraktari, 261 AD2d 156, 157). Furthermore, to the extent the motion for class certification was untimely, the court providently exercised its discretion in deeming it timely since the delay in moving was largely the result of defendants' conduct during discovery ( see Caesar v Chemical Bank, 118 Misc 2d 118, 121, affd 106 AD2d 353, mod on other grounds 66 NY2d 698).

We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

[See 13 Misc 3d 1224(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 519690(U).]