Carney v. General Growth Management, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carney v. General Growth Management, Inc.

8 A.D.3d 522, 778 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8721

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

DecidedJune 21, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 522 (Carney v. General Growth Management, Inc.) 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

Carney v. General Growth Management, Inc., 8 A.D.3d 522, 778 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Positive Productions, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J), entered July 14, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it was properly denied as untimely since it made the motion approximately seven months after the note of issue was filed and failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay in making the motion (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Gomez v Kukaj, 290 AD2d 531 [2002]).

[523]*523In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contention. Florio, J.P., Luciano, Townes and Fisher, 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 defendant Positive Productions, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J), entered July 14, 2003, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it was properly denied as untimely since it made the motion approximately seven months after the note of issue was filed and failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay in making the motion (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Gomez v Kukaj, 290 AD2d 531 [2002]).

[523]*523In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contention. Florio, J.P., Luciano, Townes and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 522, 778 N.Y.S.2d 697, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carney-v-general-growth-management-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack