In an action, inter alia, to partition real property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garson, J.), dated February 15, 2005, as denied that branch of his motion which was for leave to serve and file a late motion for summary judgment.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to serve and file a summary judgment motion more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed. The plaintiff failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for the more than two-year delay in making the motion (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]). Whether there is merit to the late motion for summary judgment is not a relevant consideration (see Rivera v Toruno, 19 AD3d 473 [2005]; Thompson v New York City Bd. of Educ., 10 AD3d 650 [2004]; Dettmann v Page, 18 AD3d 422 [2005]). While significant outstanding discovery may, in certain circumstances, constitute good cause for the delay in making a motion for summary judgment (see
We note that both the plaintiffs attorney’s reply affirmation and the defendant’s deposition transcript excerpts attached as an exhibit thereto and included in the record on appeal are dehors the record and were not considered on this appeal (see Shuler v Dupree, 14 AD3d 548 [2005]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Lifson and Lunn, JJ., concur.