Beni v. Green 485 TIC LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beni v. Green 485 TIC LLC

2016 NY Slip Op 8027, 144 A.D.3d 613, 41 N.Y.S.3d 427

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2016

Docket156432/14 2347A 2347

StatusPublished

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8027 (Beni v. Green 485 TIC LLC) 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

Beni v. Green 485 TIC LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8027, 144 A.D.3d 613, 41 N.Y.S.3d 427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered on or about April 14, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion *614 to strike the note of issue and certificate of readiness and to extend the time to file dispositive motions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly declined to strike the note of issue because, contrary to defendants’ contention, the certificate of readiness did not contain any erroneous facts about the state of discovery (see 11 Essex St. Corp. v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 96 AD3d 699 [1st Dept 2012]; Pannone v Silberstein, 40 AD3d 327 [1st Dept 2007]).

The court also properly declined to extend defendants’ time to move for summary judgment, because the delays in the discovery process were caused largely by defendants’ own dilatory conduct and therefore did not constitute “good cause” for an extension (see Andrea v Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects & Landscape Architects, P.C. [Habiterra Assoc.], 5 NY3d 514, 521 [2005], citing, inter alia, Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]; Gaffney v BFP 300 Madison II, LLC, 18 AD3d 403 [1st Dept 2005] [defendant’s failure to produce witness for deposition in timely fashion constituted good cause for plaintiff’s late summary judgment motion]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered on or about April 14, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion *614 to strike the note of issue and certificate of readiness and to extend the time to file dispositive motions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly declined to strike the note of issue because, contrary to defendants’ contention, the certificate of readiness did not contain any erroneous facts about the state of discovery (see 11 Essex St. Corp. v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 96 AD3d 699 [1st Dept 2012]; Pannone v Silberstein, 40 AD3d 327 [1st Dept 2007]).

The court also properly declined to extend defendants’ time to move for summary judgment, because the delays in the discovery process were caused largely by defendants’ own dilatory conduct and therefore did not constitute “good cause” for an extension (see Andrea v Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects & Landscape Architects, P.C. [Habiterra Assoc.], 5 NY3d 514, 521 [2005], citing, inter alia, Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]; Gaffney v BFP 300 Madison II, LLC, 18 AD3d 403 [1st Dept 2005] [defendant’s failure to produce witness for deposition in timely fashion constituted good cause for plaintiff’s late summary judgment motion]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8027, 144 A.D.3d 613, 41 N.Y.S.3d 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beni-v-green-485-tic-llc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack