Morreira v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morreira v. City of New York

289 A.D.2d 307, 734 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11978

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

DecidedDecember 10, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 307 (Morreira 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

Morreira v. City of New York, 289 A.D.2d 307, 734 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11978 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant RA Gottlieb/Slattery Associates appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated January 4, 2001, as denied its motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for summary judgment as untimely (see, CPLR 3212 [a]; Morhart v City of New York, 267 AD2d 438; Caiola v Allcity Ins. Co., 277 AD2d 273; cf., Gonzalez v 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 NY2d 124).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Luciano, Schmidt and Smith, 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 defendant RA Gottlieb/Slattery Associates appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated January 4, 2001, as denied its motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for summary judgment as untimely (see, CPLR 3212 [a]; Morhart v City of New York, 267 AD2d 438; Caiola v Allcity Ins. Co., 277 AD2d 273; cf., Gonzalez v 98 Mag Leasing Corp., 95 NY2d 124).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Luciano, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 307, 734 N.Y.S.2d 867, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morreira-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack