Connestro v. American Hockey Centers, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Connestro v. American Hockey Centers, Ltd.

266 A.D.2d 255, 698 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11318

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 255 (Connestro v. American Hockey Centers, Ltd.) 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

Connestro v. American Hockey Centers, Ltd., 266 A.D.2d 255, 698 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11318 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant William H. Hine appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated September 14, 1998, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, and granted so much of the plaintiffs cross motion as was for an extension of time to file his note of issue.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to serve and file a note of issue and statement of readiness in response to the appellant’s notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see generally, Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499; Barrett v Littles, 260 AD2d 418).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Friedmann, J. P., Florio, Schmidt and Smith, 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 William H. Hine appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated September 14, 1998, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, and granted so much of the plaintiffs cross motion as was for an extension of time to file his note of issue.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to serve and file a note of issue and statement of readiness in response to the appellant’s notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see generally, Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., 89 NY2d 499; Barrett v Littles, 260 AD2d 418).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Friedmann, J. P., Florio, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 255, 698 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connestro-v-american-hockey-centers-ltd-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack