Adams v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. City of New York

36 A.D.3d 465, 825 N.Y.S.2d 914

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 11, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 36 A.D.3d 465 (Adams v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. City of New York, 36 A.D.3d 465, 825 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered September 2, 2005, which denied defendant Housing Authority’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff filed a note of issue in December 2004. Three months later, the court ordered plaintiff to serve within 30 days a supplemental bill of particulars with respect to notice of the defective condition at issue, extending the Housing Authority’s time to move for summary judgment until 45 days after receipt of the supplemental bill. The Housing Authority neither moved for summary judgment within the allotted time nor offered good cause for failure to do so, nor requested clarification of the court’s directive, which it now claims was unclear (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered September 2, 2005, which denied defendant Housing Authority’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff filed a note of issue in December 2004. Three months later, the court ordered plaintiff to serve within 30 days a supplemental bill of particulars with respect to notice of the defective condition at issue, extending the Housing Authority’s time to move for summary judgment until 45 days after receipt of the supplemental bill. The Housing Authority neither moved for summary judgment within the allotted time nor offered good cause for failure to do so, nor requested clarification of the court’s directive, which it now claims was unclear (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.3d 465, 825 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack