Jones v. Manor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Manor

84 A.D.3d 578, 924 N.Y.S.2d 781

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

DecidedMay 17, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 A.D.3d 578 (Jones v. Manor) 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

Jones v. Manor, 84 A.D.3d 578, 924 N.Y.S.2d 781 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered July 27, 2010, which, in an action for personal injuries, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied as untimely (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]). Defendant’s excuse that it failed to timely file its motion due to the misplacement of a necessary affidavit does not [579]*579demonstrate “good cause” within the meaning of CPLR 3212 (a) (see Perini Corp. v City of New York [Department of Envtl. Protection], 16 AD3d 37, 40 [2005]). Even if we were to excuse defendant’s tardiness, we would still be constrained to deny the motion, due to the presence of numerous issues of fact precluding summary judgment. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered July 27, 2010, which, in an action for personal injuries, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied as untimely (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]). Defendant’s excuse that it failed to timely file its motion due to the misplacement of a necessary affidavit does not [579]*579demonstrate “good cause” within the meaning of CPLR 3212 (a) (see Perini Corp. v City of New York [Department of Envtl. Protection], 16 AD3d 37, 40 [2005]). Even if we were to excuse defendant’s tardiness, we would still be constrained to deny the motion, due to the presence of numerous issues of fact precluding summary judgment. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.3d 578, 924 N.Y.S.2d 781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-manor-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack