Maschi v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maschi v. City of New York

110 A.D.3d 460, 973 N.Y.S.2d 51

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

DecidedOctober 8, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A.D.3d 460 (Maschi v. City of New York) 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

Maschi v. City of New York, 110 A.D.3d 460, 973 N.Y.S.2d 51 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered March 20, 2012, which granted defendant City of New York’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied on the ground that it was untimely.

By order dated June 23, 2011, the motion court required that summary judgment motions be made, if at all, by October 12, 2011. It is undisputed that defendant’s motion was dated October 28, 2011. Accordingly, it was untimely (see CPLR 3212 [a]; see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 653-654 [2004]). Defendant’s excuse for filing a tardy motion — that counsel was on trial in another case — does not satisfy the “good cause” requirement (CPLR 3212 [a]) inasmuch as it is essentially an excuse of law office failure (see Fofana v 41 W. 34th St., LLC, 71 AD3d 445, 448 [1st Dept 2010]; Azcona v Salem, 49 AD3d 343 [1st Dept 2008]; Breiding v Giladi, 15 AD3d 435 [2d Dept 2005]). Also unavailing is defendant’s contention that plaintiffs failure to furnish it with the estate’s tax return excuses its tardiness since the outstanding discovery is neither relevant nor necessary to the motion for summary judgment (see Filannino v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 34 AD3d 280, 281 [1st Dept 2006]; Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Razy Assoc., 37 AD3d 702, 703 [2d Dept 2007]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the remaining arguments. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias 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 (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered March 20, 2012, which granted defendant City of New York’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied on the ground that it was untimely.

By order dated June 23, 2011, the motion court required that summary judgment motions be made, if at all, by October 12, 2011. It is undisputed that defendant’s motion was dated October 28, 2011. Accordingly, it was untimely (see CPLR 3212 [a]; see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 653-654 [2004]). Defendant’s excuse for filing a tardy motion — that counsel was on trial in another case — does not satisfy the “good cause” requirement (CPLR 3212 [a]) inasmuch as it is essentially an excuse of law office failure (see Fofana v 41 W. 34th St., LLC, 71 AD3d 445, 448 [1st Dept 2010]; Azcona v Salem, 49 AD3d 343 [1st Dept 2008]; Breiding v Giladi, 15 AD3d 435 [2d Dept 2005]). Also unavailing is defendant’s contention that plaintiffs failure to furnish it with the estate’s tax return excuses its tardiness since the outstanding discovery is neither relevant nor necessary to the motion for summary judgment (see Filannino v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 34 AD3d 280, 281 [1st Dept 2006]; Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Razy Assoc., 37 AD3d 702, 703 [2d Dept 2007]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the remaining arguments. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.3d 460, 973 N.Y.S.2d 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maschi-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack