Lopez v. Metropolitan Tr. Auth.

2021 NY Slip Op 00910, 138 N.Y.S.3d 327, 191 A.D.3d 508
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 11, 2021
DocketIndex No. 162233/15 Appeal No. 13111 Case No. 2019-05080
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 2021 NY Slip Op 00910 (Lopez v. Metropolitan Tr. Auth.) 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
Lopez v. Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 00910, 138 N.Y.S.3d 327, 191 A.D.3d 508 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

Lopez v Metropolitan Tr. Auth. (2021 NY Slip Op 00910)
Lopez v Metropolitan Tr. Auth.
2021 NY Slip Op 00910
Decided on February 11, 2021
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: February 11, 2021
Before: Acosta, P.J., Kapnick, Singh, Mendez, JJ.

Index No. 162233/15 Appeal No. 13111 Case No. 2019-05080

[*1]Juan Lopez, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Metropolitan Transit Authority et al., Defendants-Appellants.


Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, Lake Success (Jonathan P. Shaub of counsel), for appellants.

Hill & Moin LLP, New York (Cheryl R. Eisberg Moin of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz), entered June 4, 2019, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as untimely, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for a determination of the motion on the merits.

Defendants' motion for summary judgment was timely since it was filed within the time period provided in the preliminary conference order. That deadline is controlling, despite the transfer to another Justice with part rules shortening the time, given no subsequent order or directive explicitly providing otherwise (see Encore I, Inc. v Kabcenell, 160 AD3d 450 [1st Dept 2018]; Freire-Crespo v 345 Park Ave. L.P., 122 AD3d 501 [1st Dept 2014]).

In view of the foregoing, the matter is remanded to Supreme Court for a substantive determination on the merits of the motion (see e.g. Higgins v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 93 AD3d 443[1st Dept 2012]; Commissioner of the State Ins. Fund v Weissman, 90 AD3d 417, 417-418 [1st Dept 2011]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: February 11, 2021



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

Related

Park v. Fifty-Seven Ave. Invs. LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 31669(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Ortiz v. New York City Hous. Auth.
2024 NY Slip Op 31622(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Kearns v. One N.Y. Plaza Co. LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 31552(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Karamalis v. Leonard St. Props. Group, Ltd.
2024 NY Slip Op 31486(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Mateo v. 63, 65 & 67 W. 107th St. Condominium
2024 NY Slip Op 24123 (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Mateo v. 63,65 & 67 W. 107th St. Condominium
2024 NY Slip Op 24123 (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Riordan v. Garces
2023 NY Slip Op 02290 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2021 NY Slip Op 00910, 138 N.Y.S.3d 327, 191 A.D.3d 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-metropolitan-tr-auth-nyappdiv-2021.