Cohen-Putnam Agency, Ltd. v. Hudson Building Maintenance, Inc.

55 A.D.3d 653, 864 N.Y.S.2d 792
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 14, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 A.D.3d 653 (Cohen-Putnam Agency, Ltd. v. Hudson Building Maintenance, 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
Cohen-Putnam Agency, Ltd. v. Hudson Building Maintenance, Inc., 55 A.D.3d 653, 864 N.Y.S.2d 792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

an action, inter alia, in effect, to recover damages for breach of an express warranty, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O’Rourke, J), dated August 28, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in entertaining the summary judgment motion brought by the defendant long past the time required by CPLR 3212, in the absence good cause shown (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]; Dettmann v Page, 18 AD3d 422 [2005]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion should have been denied. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lyebyedyev v. Hoffman
84 A.D.3d 751 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 A.D.3d 653, 864 N.Y.S.2d 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-putnam-agency-ltd-v-hudson-building-maintenance-inc-nyappdiv-2008.