Bevilacqua v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bevilacqua v. City of New York

21 A.D.3d 340, 798 N.Y.S.2d 909

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

DecidedAugust 1, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 340 (Bevilacqua v. City of New York) 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

Bevilacqua v. City of New York, 21 A.D.3d 340, 798 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Thomas C. Reitz, Jr., and Albert W. Marini, Jr., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated October 13, 2004, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs- to the plaintiff-respondent.

The appellants’ summary judgment motion was made more than 60 days after the plaintiff filed a note of issue on February 4, 2004, in violation of rule 13 of the Uniform Civil Trial Rules of the Supreme Court, Kings County. The appellants failed to establish good cause for the delay (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]; First Union Auto Fin., Inc. v Donat, 16 AD3d 372 [2005]; Breiding v Giladi, 15 AD3d 435 [2005]).

In light of our determination, we need not consider the parties’ remaining contentions. H. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Thomas C. Reitz, Jr., and Albert W. Marini, Jr., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated October 13, 2004, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs- to the plaintiff-respondent.

The appellants’ summary judgment motion was made more than 60 days after the plaintiff filed a note of issue on February 4, 2004, in violation of rule 13 of the Uniform Civil Trial Rules of the Supreme Court, Kings County. The appellants failed to establish good cause for the delay (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]; First Union Auto Fin., Inc. v Donat, 16 AD3d 372 [2005]; Breiding v Giladi, 15 AD3d 435 [2005]).

In light of our determination, we need not consider the parties’ remaining contentions. H. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 340, 798 N.Y.S.2d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bevilacqua-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack