Hernandez v. 35-55 73rd Street, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hernandez v. 35-55 73rd Street, LLC

90 A.D.3d 709, 934 N.Y.2d 332

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 709 (Hernandez v. 35-55 73rd Street, LLC) 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

Hernandez v. 35-55 73rd Street, LLC, 90 A.D.3d 709, 934 N.Y.2d 332 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court correctly denied, as untimely, the summary judgment motion of the defendant 35-55 73rd Street, LLC, and the separate summary judgment motion of the defendant A&S Tile & Marble, Inc., which were made returnable 12 and 54 days, respectively, beyond the deadline fixed by the Supreme Court in a so-ordered stipulation, as the defendants failed to [710]*710demonstrate good cause for the delay (see CPLR 2004, 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]; Anderson v Kantares, 51 AD3d 954 [2008]; Jackson v Jamaica First Parking, LLC, 49 AD3d 501 [2008]; DiBenedetto v Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc., 43 AD3d 853 [2007]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendants’ remaining contentions. Angiolillo, J.P, Dickerson, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court correctly denied, as untimely, the summary judgment motion of the defendant 35-55 73rd Street, LLC, and the separate summary judgment motion of the defendant A&S Tile & Marble, Inc., which were made returnable 12 and 54 days, respectively, beyond the deadline fixed by the Supreme Court in a so-ordered stipulation, as the defendants failed to [710]*710demonstrate good cause for the delay (see CPLR 2004, 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]; Anderson v Kantares, 51 AD3d 954 [2008]; Jackson v Jamaica First Parking, LLC, 49 AD3d 501 [2008]; DiBenedetto v Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc., 43 AD3d 853 [2007]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendants’ remaining contentions. Angiolillo, J.P, Dickerson, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 709, 934 N.Y.2d 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-35-55-73rd-street-llc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack