Miller v. Ball

2018 NY Slip Op 6897
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 17, 2018
Docket2017-05645
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 6897 (Miller v. Ball) 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
Miller v. Ball, 2018 NY Slip Op 6897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

Miller v Ball (2018 NY Slip Op 06897)
Miller v Ball
2018 NY Slip Op 06897
Decided on October 17, 2018
Appellate Division, Second 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 on October 17, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
ROBERT J. MILLER
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

2017-05645
(Index No. 22339/12)

[*1]Paige Miller, respondent,

v

James Ball, appellant.


Ann Ball P.C., Commack, NY, for appellant.

Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, Ledva & Meyers LLP, New York, NY (Kevin L. Kelly of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Diccia T. Pineda-Kirwan, J.), entered April 28, 2017. The order denied the defendant's motion, in effect, for summary judgment on his counterclaims as untimely.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the defendant's motion, in effect, for summary judgment on his counterclaims was untimely, and that the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay in making his motion (see CPLR 3212[a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 650; Perini Corp. v City of New York [Department of Envtl. Protection], 16 AD3d 37, 40).

The defendant's remaining contention is not properly before this Court.

We decline the plaintiff's request to impose a sanction upon the defendant for pursuing an allegedly frivolous appeal (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c]).

DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, MILLER and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

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

Related

Brill v. City of New York
814 N.E.2d 431 (New York Court of Appeals, 2004)
Perini Corp. v. City of New York
16 A.D.3d 37 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 NY Slip Op 6897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-ball-nyappdiv-2018.