Hayes v. Dargone, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hayes v. Dargone, Inc.

33 A.D.3d 563, 822 N.Y.S.2d 704

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

DecidedOctober 31, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.3d 563 (Hayes v. Dargone, 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

Hayes v. Dargone, Inc., 33 A.D.3d 563, 822 N.Y.S.2d 704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered April 28, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied as untimely the motion of defendant Dargone, Inc. for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is undisputed that defendant Dargone, Inc. moved for summary judgment approximately 18 months after the note of issue was filed without seeking leave of the court or offering an explanation showing good cause for the delay. The motion was thus properly denied by the court as untimely (see CPLR 3212 [a]), and without reaching the merits of defendant’s arguments for summary relief (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]; and see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Marlow, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered April 28, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, denied as untimely the motion of defendant Dargone, Inc. for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is undisputed that defendant Dargone, Inc. moved for summary judgment approximately 18 months after the note of issue was filed without seeking leave of the court or offering an explanation showing good cause for the delay. The motion was thus properly denied by the court as untimely (see CPLR 3212 [a]), and without reaching the merits of defendant’s arguments for summary relief (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]; and see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Marlow, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.3d 563, 822 N.Y.S.2d 704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-dargone-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack