Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant demonstrated a good cause for its delay in making a motion for summary judgment, and the motion court providently exercised its discretion in entertaining the late motion ( see CPLR 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]; Olivier v Rodney, 27 AD3d 631; Certified Elec. Contr. Corp. v City of New York [Dept. of Transp.], 23 AD3d 596; Herrera v Felice Realty Corp., 22 AD3d 723). On the merits, the defendant submitted evidence sufficient to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the allegedly negligent third-party defendant was an independent contractor, over whom it exercised no control, and not one of its employees ( see Kleeman v Rheingold, 81 NY2d 270, 273; Rosenberg v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 79 NY2d 663, 668; Abreu v Schneilwert, 303 AD2d 527; Metling v Punia Marx, 303 AD2d 386; Mercado v Slope Assoc, 246 AD2d 581). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320).