Bennett v. St. John's Home

43 N.E.3d 372, 26 N.Y.3d 1033, 22 N.Y.S.3d 162
New York Court of Appeals·Decided November 23, 2015·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered as unnecessary. As the issue of the timeliness under CPLR 3212 (a) [1034] of defendants’ summary judgment motion was not preserved in Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals lacks power to review either the Appellate Division’s exercise of its discretion to reach the issue, or the issue itself (see Hecker v State of New York, 20 NY3d 1087 [2013]). On the remaining issue presented, the Appellate Division properly held that defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam and Fahey; Judge Stein taking no part.

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

Bennett v. St. John's Home, 43 N.E.3d 372, 26 N.Y.3d 1033, 22 N.Y.S.3d 162 (N.Y. 2015).

43 N.E.3d 372 (Bennett v. St. John's Home) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lagattuta-Spataro v. Sciarrino
2021 NY Slip Op 00738 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)