Kitkas v. Windsor Place Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kitkas v. Windsor Place Corp.

49 A.D.3d 607, 852 N.Y.2d 809

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 607 (Kitkas v. Windsor Place Corp.) 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

Kitkas v. Windsor Place Corp., 49 A.D.3d 607, 852 N.Y.2d 809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[608]*608“A motion on notice is made when a notice of the motion is served” (CPLR 2211; see Russo v Eveco Dev. Corp. 256 AD2d 566 [1998]; Rivera v Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc., 29 AD3d 560, 561 [2006]). Thus, contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, the initial motion for summary judgment made by the second third-party defendant/third third-party defendant Boca Electric Corp. (hereinafter Boca) was timely when it was served on all opposing counsel by mail on December 16, 2005 (see CPLR 2103 [b] [2]; see also Weinstein-Korn-Miller NY Civ Prac ¶ 2211.07). Boca’s subsequent service of an amended notice of motion, in order to schedule the return of the motion on a date permitted by the Supreme Court’s rules of practice, did not render the motion untimely (see Rivera v Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc., 29 AD3d at 562). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to determine Boca’s motion on the merits. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

[608]*608“A motion on notice is made when a notice of the motion is served” (CPLR 2211; see Russo v Eveco Dev. Corp. 256 AD2d 566 [1998]; Rivera v Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc., 29 AD3d 560, 561 [2006]). Thus, contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, the initial motion for summary judgment made by the second third-party defendant/third third-party defendant Boca Electric Corp. (hereinafter Boca) was timely when it was served on all opposing counsel by mail on December 16, 2005 (see CPLR 2103 [b] [2]; see also Weinstein-Korn-Miller NY Civ Prac ¶ 2211.07). Boca’s subsequent service of an amended notice of motion, in order to schedule the return of the motion on a date permitted by the Supreme Court’s rules of practice, did not render the motion untimely (see Rivera v Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc., 29 AD3d at 562). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to determine Boca’s motion on the merits. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 607, 852 N.Y.2d 809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kitkas-v-windsor-place-corp-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack