Martorello v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martorello v. Consolidated Edison Co.

260 A.D.2d 317, 689 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4369

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

DecidedApril 29, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 317 (Martorello v. Consolidated Edison Co.) 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

Martorello v. Consolidated Edison Co., 260 A.D.2d 317, 689 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered October 16, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion [318]*318for leave to make a motion for summary judgment more than 120 days after the filing of a note of issue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied absent an explanation why it was not made at the time that defendant moved to vacate the note of issue on the ground that plaintiff had failed to comply with all outstanding disclosure demands. Moreover, there is no showing that plaintiffs dilatory conduct in providing disclosure prevented defendant from moving for summary judgment. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.), entered October 16, 1998, which denied defendant’s motion [318]*318for leave to make a motion for summary judgment more than 120 days after the filing of a note of issue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied absent an explanation why it was not made at the time that defendant moved to vacate the note of issue on the ground that plaintiff had failed to comply with all outstanding disclosure demands. Moreover, there is no showing that plaintiffs dilatory conduct in providing disclosure prevented defendant from moving for summary judgment. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Mazzarelli and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 317, 689 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martorello-v-consolidated-edison-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack