Connolly v. 129 East 69th Street Corp.

127 A.D.3d 617, 7 N.Y.S.3d 889
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 28, 2015·No. 14933 150016/10·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

*618 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered March 3, 2014, which granted the motions of defendants 129 East 69th Street Corporation, Plaza Florist Too, Inc., doing business as Plaza Flowers, and Lawrence Friedland and Melvin Friedland dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions denied.

Supreme Court’s individual part rules provided that motions for summary judgment were to be “filed” within 60 days of the filing of the note of issue. Since plaintiffs filed the note of issue on July 10, 2013, the motions for summary judgment were due by September 9, 2013. While 129 East 69th Street Corporation (129 East) made (served) a motion for summary judgment on September 4, 2013, it did not file the motion until September 10, 2013, one day after the 60-day time period expired. Therefore, the motion was untimely (see Corchado v City of New York, 64 AD3d 429 [1st Dept 2009]). The other defendants’ motions, having been filed after 129 East’s motion, were also untimely.

We have considered the other arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Renwick and Gische, JJ.

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

Connolly v. 129 East 69th Street Corp., 127 A.D.3d 617, 7 N.Y.S.3d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

127 A.D.3d 617 (Connolly v. 129 East 69th Street Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

G4 Noteholder, LLC v. LDC Properties, LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 6524 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)