Bennett v. Hucke

64 A.D.3d 529, 881 N.Y.S.2d 335
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 7, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 64 A.D.3d 529 (Bennett v. Hucke) 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
Bennett v. Hucke, 64 A.D.3d 529, 881 N.Y.S.2d 335 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc. the plaintiff Joseph Bennett, as guardian of James Bennett, an incapacitated person, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated March 18, 2008, which granted the motion of the defendants Alan Kirk, Alan H. Kirk, Inc., and Alan Kirk Custom Homes, Inc., pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the respondents’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them is denied.

[530]*530As the plaintiff correctly contends, the motion of the defendants Alan Kirk, Alan H. Kirk, Inc., and Alan Kirk Custom Homes, Inc. (hereinafter collectively the Kirk defendants), pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the complaint was not made within the time period in which those defendants were required to serve an answer (see CPLR 3211 [e]). Accordingly, since no extension of time to make the motion was requested by the Kirk defendants or granted by the court (see CPLR 2004), the motion should have been denied as untimely (see Bowes v Healy, 40 AD3d 566 [2007]; Diaz v DiGiulio, 29 AD3d 623 [2006]; Continental Info. Sys. Corp. v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 77 AD2d 316, 318 [1980]). The Kirk defendants may pursue any appropriate relief by way of a summary judgment motion in the normal course of the litigation (see Diaz v DiGiulio, 29 AD3d at 623).

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Mastro, J.P, Skelos, Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Digital Direct & More, Inc. v. Dialectic Distrib., LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 04196 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Old Republic Natl. Title Ins. Co. v. 1152 53 Mgt., LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 02543 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Han v. New York City Tr. Auth.
203 A.D.3d 511 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
21st Mtge. Corp. v. Raghu
2021 NY Slip Op 05016 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Moody v. Hmoud
2021 NY Slip Op 01762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Hamilton Equity Group, LLC v. Lumbrereas
2021 NY Slip Op 00742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Hall
2020 NY Slip Op 4292 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Gilchrist
2019 NY Slip Op 4217 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Portilla v. Law Offices of Arcia & Flanagan
125 A.D.3d 956 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Archer v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.
118 A.D.3d 5 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Lema v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance
112 A.D.3d 891 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Borrie v. County of Suffolk
88 A.D.3d 842 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Clinkscale v. Sampson
74 A.D.3d 721 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Nowacki v. Becker
71 A.D.3d 1496 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 A.D.3d 529, 881 N.Y.S.2d 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-hucke-nyappdiv-2009.