Dodds v. Alfaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dodds v. Alfaro

290 A.D.2d 412, 736 N.Y.S.2d 602, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 259

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 412 (Dodds v. Alfaro) 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

Dodds v. Alfaro, 290 A.D.2d 412, 736 N.Y.S.2d 602, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated June 27, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as untimely.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to determine the motion on the merits.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as untimely. The motion was made well within the 120-day period provided by CPLR 3212 (a). Furthermore, the record is devoid of any order by the Supreme Court setting a shorter time period in this case (see, CPLR 3212 [a]). Accordingly, the motion should have been decided on the merits. Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Friedmann and Schmidt, 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 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), dated June 27, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as untimely.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to determine the motion on the merits.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as untimely. The motion was made well within the 120-day period provided by CPLR 3212 (a). Furthermore, the record is devoid of any order by the Supreme Court setting a shorter time period in this case (see, CPLR 3212 [a]). Accordingly, the motion should have been decided on the merits. Feuerstein, J.P., Krausman, Friedmann and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 412, 736 N.Y.S.2d 602, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodds-v-alfaro-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack