Since defendants did not demonstrate "good cause" for their failure to comply with the time constraints of CPLR 3212 (a), their motion for summary judgment was properly rejected as untimely ( Brill v. City of New York, 2 NY3d 648; see also Miceli v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725). Moreover, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in affording plaintiffs leave to file a supplemental bill of particulars to allege additional code violations ( see Noetzell v. Park Ave. Hall Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 271 AD2d 231, 232-233; Orros v. Yick Ming Yip Realty, 258 AD2d 387, 388).