Asaro v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Asaro v. City of New York

19 A.D.3d 167, 795 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6123

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

DecidedJune 9, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 167 (Asaro 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

Asaro v. City of New York, 19 A.D.3d 167, 795 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6123 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered December 14 and November 19, 2004, which, respectively, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiffs’ motion to serve an amended bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since defendants did not demonstrate “good cause” for their failure to comply with the time constraints of CPLR 3212 (a), their motion for summary judgment was properly rejected as untimely (Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]; see also Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]). Moreover, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in affording plaintiffs leave to file a supplemental bill of particulars to allege additional code violations (see Noetzell v Park Ave. Hall Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 271 AD2d 231, 232-233 [2000]; Orros v Yick Ming Yip Realty, 258 AD2d 387, 388 [1999]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered December 14 and November 19, 2004, which, respectively, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiffs’ motion to serve an amended bill of particulars, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since defendants did not demonstrate “good cause” for their failure to comply with the time constraints of CPLR 3212 (a), their motion for summary judgment was properly rejected as untimely (Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]; see also Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]). Moreover, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in affording plaintiffs leave to file a supplemental bill of particulars to allege additional code violations (see Noetzell v Park Ave. Hall Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 271 AD2d 231, 232-233 [2000]; Orros v Yick Ming Yip Realty, 258 AD2d 387, 388 [1999]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 167, 795 N.Y.S.2d 890, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asaro-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack