Powers v. Sculco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Powers v. Sculco

89 A.D.3d 1075, 933 N.Y.2d 602

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 1075 (Powers v. Sculco) 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

Powers v. Sculco, 89 A.D.3d 1075, 933 N.Y.2d 602 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The note of issue in this action was filed on January 8, 2010. In a preliminary conference order, the Supreme Court required dispositive motions to be made within 60 days of the filing of the note of issue, i.e., by March 9, 2010. The defendants filed their cross motion for summary judgment more than four months after the deadline set by the Supreme Court. Contrary to their contention, the defendants failed to show “good cause” for filing a late motion (CPLR 3212 [a]; see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]; Castillo v Valente, 85 AD3d 1080 [2011]; Riccardi v CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 60 AD3d 838 [2009]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied, as untimely, the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendants’ remaining contentions. Rivera, J.E, Eng, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

The note of issue in this action was filed on January 8, 2010. In a preliminary conference order, the Supreme Court required dispositive motions to be made within 60 days of the filing of the note of issue, i.e., by March 9, 2010. The defendants filed their cross motion for summary judgment more than four months after the deadline set by the Supreme Court. Contrary to their contention, the defendants failed to show “good cause” for filing a late motion (CPLR 3212 [a]; see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]; Castillo v Valente, 85 AD3d 1080 [2011]; Riccardi v CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 60 AD3d 838 [2009]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied, as untimely, the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendants’ remaining contentions. Rivera, J.E, Eng, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 1075, 933 N.Y.2d 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powers-v-sculco-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack