Bennett v. St. John's Home

New York Court of Appeals

Bennett v. St. John's Home

43 N.E.3d 372, 26 N.Y.3d 1033, 22 N.Y.S.3d 162

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 23, 2015

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 43 N.E.3d 372 (Bennett v. St. John's Home) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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]*1034of 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

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]*1034of 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 N.E.3d 372, 26 N.Y.3d 1033, 22 N.Y.S.3d 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-st-johns-home-ny-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack