Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the plaintiffs' motion to reargue was not untimely. Since the plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal from the original order, "reargument did not serve as a substitute for failure to timely take an appeal" ( Bermudez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 199 A.D.2d 356, 357). In addition, the motion to reargue was made within a reasonable time after the original order and prior to the submission of the appeal from that order ( see, Bray v. Gluck, 235 A.D.2d 72; Bermudez v. New York City Hous. Auth., supra).
Furthermore, summary judgment in favor of a defendant is generally precluded where, as here, the opinion of an expert establishes that a plaintiff's injuries were caused by a deviation from relevant industry standards ( see, Murphy v. City of Elmira, 84 N.Y.2d 969, 971; see also, Quinn v. K-Mart Corp., 224 A.D.2d 988).
Thompson, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.