Jackson v. Jamaica First Parking, LLC

49 A.D.3d 501, 851 N.Y.2d 892
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 4, 2008·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

The Supreme Court correctly denied the appellant’s motion as untimely, as the appellant failed to demonstrate “good cause” for making its motion after the 120-day deadline imposed by CPLR 3212 (a) had passed (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]; Coty v County of Clinton, 42 AD3d 612 [2007]). The record contains no proof that outstanding discovery prevented the appellant from making a timely motion for summary judgment (see Espejo v Hiro Real Estate Co., 19 AD3d 360 [2005]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contentions. Mastro, J.E, Florio, Miller and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

Jackson v. Jamaica First Parking, LLC, 49 A.D.3d 501, 851 N.Y.2d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

49 A.D.3d 501 (Jackson v. Jamaica First Parking, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Courtview Owners Corp. v. Courtview Holding B.V.
113 A.D.3d 722 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Hernandez v. 35-55 73rd Street, LLC
90 A.D.3d 709 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Van Dyke v. Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Inc.
83 A.D.3d 1049 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Riccardi v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
60 A.D.3d 838 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Rivera v. New York Presbyterian Hospital
57 A.D.3d 755 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Anderson v. Kantares
51 A.D.3d 954 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)