Fortanasce v. Meyrowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fortanasce v. Meyrowitz

141 A.D.2d 606, 529 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6859

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

DecidedJune 13, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 141 A.D.2d 606 (Fortanasce v. Meyrowitz) 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

Fortanasce v. Meyrowitz, 141 A.D.2d 606, 529 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for dental malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Santucci, J.), dated April 14, 1987, which granted the defendant’s cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing all claims for acts alleged to have occurred prior to November 27, 1981.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the cross motion is dismissed with leave to renew.

The defendant’s cross motion was not timely served within the statutory time provisions of CPLR 2215 and 2103 (b) (2). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not acquire jurisdiction of the cross motion and the provision of the order granting the cross motion was jurisdictionally void (see, Morabito v Champion Swimming Pool Corp., 18 AD2d 706). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Rubin and Sullivan, 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 dental malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Santucci, J.), dated April 14, 1987, which granted the defendant’s cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing all claims for acts alleged to have occurred prior to November 27, 1981.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the cross motion is dismissed with leave to renew.

The defendant’s cross motion was not timely served within the statutory time provisions of CPLR 2215 and 2103 (b) (2). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not acquire jurisdiction of the cross motion and the provision of the order granting the cross motion was jurisdictionally void (see, Morabito v Champion Swimming Pool Corp., 18 AD2d 706). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.2d 606, 529 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fortanasce-v-meyrowitz-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack