Nobile v. Town of Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nobile v. Town of Hempstead

17 A.D.3d 647, 792 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4356

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

DecidedApril 25, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 647 (Nobile v. Town of Hempstead) 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

Nobile v. Town of Hempstead, 17 A.D.3d 647, 792 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated February 27, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in considering the defendant’s untimely motion for summary judgment, since the defendant failed to show good cause for the delay (see CFLR 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004] ; First Union Auto Fin., Inc. v Donat, 16 AD3d 372 [2005] ). In light of our determination, we do not reach the merits of the parties’ substantive claims (see Brill v City of New York, supra). Florio, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Skelos, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated February 27, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in considering the defendant’s untimely motion for summary judgment, since the defendant failed to show good cause for the delay (see CFLR 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004] ; First Union Auto Fin., Inc. v Donat, 16 AD3d 372 [2005] ). In light of our determination, we do not reach the merits of the parties’ substantive claims (see Brill v City of New York, supra). Florio, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 647, 792 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nobile-v-town-of-hempstead-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack