BAJE Realty Corp. v. Cutler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

BAJE Realty Corp. v. Cutler

222 A.D.2d 242, 635 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12711

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 242 (BAJE Realty Corp. v. Cutler) 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

BAJE Realty Corp. v. Cutler, 222 A.D.2d 242, 635 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered April 1, 1994, which, inter alia, denied cross-appellants’ motion to dismiss the amended third-party complaint, unanimously vacated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings, without costs.

Plaintiff and third-party defendants failed to demonstrate good cause for an 11-month delay in settling the order following the court’s memorandum decision and direction to settle an order. Accordingly, the motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in signing the order more than 60 days after the direction to settle (22 NYCRR 202.48; see, Matter of Karmen [American Socy. of Composers, Authors & Publs.], 199 AD2d 188; Garcia v New York City Tr. Auth., 193 AD2d 414; Pena v City of New York, 192 AD2d 493; compare, Apple Bank for Sav. v Mehta, 202 AD2d 339). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered April 1, 1994, which, inter alia, denied cross-appellants’ motion to dismiss the amended third-party complaint, unanimously vacated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings, without costs.

Plaintiff and third-party defendants failed to demonstrate good cause for an 11-month delay in settling the order following the court’s memorandum decision and direction to settle an order. Accordingly, the motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in signing the order more than 60 days after the direction to settle (22 NYCRR 202.48; see, Matter of Karmen [American Socy. of Composers, Authors & Publs.], 199 AD2d 188; Garcia v New York City Tr. Auth., 193 AD2d 414; Pena v City of New York, 192 AD2d 493; compare, Apple Bank for Sav. v Mehta, 202 AD2d 339). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 242, 635 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baje-realty-corp-v-cutler-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack