LAPP, PEGGY D. v. MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LAPP, PEGGY D. v. MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 2012·No. CA 12-00130·Published

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

696 CA 12-00130 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

PEGGY D. LAPP, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (HUGH M. RUSS, III, OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

RICHARD J. LIPPES & ASSOCIATES, BUFFALO (RICHARD J. LIPPES OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered October 25, 2011 in a personal injury action. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained as a result of her alleged exposure to toxins while working with a machine that was manufactured by defendant. Plaintiff filed a note of issue on September 1, 2010 and, in May 2011, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Supreme Court properly denied the motion on the grounds that it was untimely (see CPLR 3212 [a]), and that defendant did not meet its burden of demonstrating good cause for its delay in bringing the motion (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652; Jones v Town of Le Ray, 28 AD3d 1177, 1178). In light of our conclusion that the court properly denied defendant’s motion, we do not address the remaining issues raised by defendant.

Entered: June 15, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

696 CA 12-00130 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

PEGGY D. LAPP, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (HUGH M. RUSS, III, OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

RICHARD J. LIPPES & ASSOCIATES, BUFFALO (RICHARD J. LIPPES OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered October 25, 2011 in a personal injury action. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained as a result of her alleged exposure to toxins while working with a machine that was manufactured by defendant. Plaintiff filed a note of issue on September 1, 2010 and, in May 2011, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Supreme Court properly denied the motion on the grounds that it was untimely (see CPLR 3212 [a]), and that defendant did not meet its burden of demonstrating good cause for its delay in bringing the motion (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652; Jones v Town of Le Ray, 28 AD3d 1177, 1178). In light of our conclusion that the court properly denied defendant’s motion, we do not address the remaining issues raised by defendant.

Entered: June 15, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

LAPP, PEGGY D. v. MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

LAPP, PEGGY D. v. MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO (LAPP, PEGGY D. v. MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related