DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in permitting the defendant to submit a motion for partial summary judgment more than one year after the note of issue was filed, and on the eve of trial, in view of the fact that the defendant did not demonstrate any good cause for the inordinate delay ( see, CPLR 3212[a]; Rich v. Ciano, 254 A.D.2d 268 [2d Dept., Oct. 5, 1998]; Anzalone v. Varis, 254 A.D.2d 381 [2d Dept., Oct. 19, 1998]; Krug v. Jones, 252 A.D.2d 572; Phoenix Garden Rest. v. Chu, 245 A.D.2d 164). In any event, we agree with the Supreme Court that there remain triable issues of fact with respect to whether the decedent experienced conscious pain and suffering prior to his death ( see generally, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Singer v. Friedman, 220 A.D.2d 574).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.