Mills v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mills v. City of New York

2016 NY Slip Op 7165, 144 A.D.3d 644, 39 N.Y.S.3d 817

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

DecidedNovember 2, 2016

Docket2016-01341

StatusPublished

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 7165 (Mills 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

Mills v. City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 7165, 144 A.D.3d 644, 39 N.Y.S.3d 817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), entered December 15, 2015, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries during the course *645 of his employment when a ladder which he was using to descend from a scaffold shifted and fell, causing him to fall to the ground. The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging negligence and violations of the Labor Law. After discovery had been completed, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendants opposed the motion and argued, among other things, that the motion was untimely because it was made more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed. The Supreme Court granted the motion and found, inter alia, that since the note of issue was vacated while the plaintiff’s motion was pending, the motion was not untimely. We affirm.

The defendants’ sole contention on appeal is that the plaintiff’s motion was untimely. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, since the note of issue was vacated while the plaintiff’s motion was pending, the motion was not untimely, and the Supreme Court properly considered it (see Vinueza v Tarar, 100 AD3d 742 [2012]; Williams v Peralta, 37 AD3d 712 [2007]; Farrington v Heidkamp, 26 AD3d 459 [2006]).

In light of our determination, we need not address the plaintiff’s remaining contention.

Balkin, J.P., Hall, Cohen and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), entered December 15, 2015, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries during the course *645 of his employment when a ladder which he was using to descend from a scaffold shifted and fell, causing him to fall to the ground. The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging negligence and violations of the Labor Law. After discovery had been completed, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendants opposed the motion and argued, among other things, that the motion was untimely because it was made more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed. The Supreme Court granted the motion and found, inter alia, that since the note of issue was vacated while the plaintiff’s motion was pending, the motion was not untimely. We affirm.

The defendants’ sole contention on appeal is that the plaintiff’s motion was untimely. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, since the note of issue was vacated while the plaintiff’s motion was pending, the motion was not untimely, and the Supreme Court properly considered it (see Vinueza v Tarar, 100 AD3d 742 [2012]; Williams v Peralta, 37 AD3d 712 [2007]; Farrington v Heidkamp, 26 AD3d 459 [2006]).

In light of our determination, we need not address the plaintiff’s remaining contention.

Balkin, J.P., Hall, Cohen and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 7165, 144 A.D.3d 644, 39 N.Y.S.3d 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack