Ordered that the order, is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the defendants to serve a late motion for summary judgment, even though the motion was made on the eve of trial and more than 120 days after the effective date of the amendment to CPLR 3212 (a) ( see, Anzalone v. Varis, 254 A.D.2d 381; Eason v. Herber Middle School, 250 A.D.2d 807; Krug v. Jones, 252 A.D.2d 572; see also, Wade v. Byung Yang Kim, 250 A.D.2d 323). The court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment since the defendants had no duty to warn against a condition that, was readily observable by a reasonable use of one's senses ( see, Moran v. County of Dutchess, 237 A.D.2d 266; Laluna v. DGM Partners, 234 A.D.2d 519; Binensztok v. Marshall Stores, 228 A.D.2d 534; Ackermann v. Town of Fishkill, 201 A.D.2d 441, 443).
Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.