Plaintiff in a legal malpractice case submitted errata sheet in opposition to motion for summary judgment.  The deposition testimony supported defendant’s position on the motion, and changes in the errata sheet were necessary to oppose the motion.  In this case.

"Plaintiff’s errata sheets should have been struck
since plaintiff failed to timely submit a statement of the reasons for the numerous changes in his deposition testimony indicated thereon (see CPLR 3116[a]; Schachat v Bell Atl. Corp., 282 AD2d 329 [2001]; Rodriguez v Jones, 227 AD2d 220 [1996]).

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this action to recover for alleged legal malpractice should have been granted since plaintiff’s unrevised testimony and the affidavits submitted in opposition to the motions were insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to notice of [*2]the alleged defective condition, a "missing" ladder rung, and whether, but for the alleged malpractice, plaintiffs would have prevailed in the underlying action in which they were represented by defendants "