Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court correctly denied the appellant's motion as untimely, as the appellant failed to demonstrate "good cause" for making its motion after the 120-day deadline imposed by CPLR 3212 (a) had passed ( see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648; Coty v County of Clinton, 42 AD3d 612). The record contains no proof that outstanding discovery prevented the appellant from making a timely motion for summary judgment ( see Espejo v Hiro Real Estate Co., 19 AD3d 360).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant's remaining contentions.