Brody v. Propark America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brody v. Propark America

2017 NY Slip Op 3044, 149 A.D.3d 576, 50 N.Y.S.3d 275

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

DecidedApril 20, 2017

Docket3588 114480/09

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3044 (Brody v. Propark America) 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

Brody v. Propark America, 2017 NY Slip Op 3044, 149 A.D.3d 576, 50 N.Y.S.3d 275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d’Auguste, J.), entered December 1, 2005, which denied defendant Propark America’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Propark’s motion for summary judgment was untimely, and Propark failed to offer “good cause,” or any explanation at all, for the delay in making it (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]).

Propark’s argument that the court erred in granting defendant City’s motion for summary judgment is not properly before *577 this Court since Propark did not take an appeal from the order that granted the City’s motion.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d’Auguste, J.), entered December 1, 2005, which denied defendant Propark America’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Propark’s motion for summary judgment was untimely, and Propark failed to offer “good cause,” or any explanation at all, for the delay in making it (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]).

Propark’s argument that the court erred in granting defendant City’s motion for summary judgment is not properly before *577 this Court since Propark did not take an appeal from the order that granted the City’s motion.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3044, 149 A.D.3d 576, 50 N.Y.S.3d 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brody-v-propark-america-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack