Rivera v. Columbia Hicks Associates, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Columbia Hicks Associates, LLC

2017 NY Slip Op 4375, 151 A.D.3d 425, 52 N.Y.S.3d 863

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

DecidedJune 1, 2017

Docket4163 301377/09 83980/09 84144/12

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4375 (Rivera v. Columbia Hicks Associates, LLC) 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

Rivera v. Columbia Hicks Associates, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 4375, 151 A.D.3d 425, 52 N.Y.S.3d 863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered April 6, 2016, which denied second third-party defendant Knockdown Contracting Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing second third-party plaintiff Columbia Hicks Associates LLC’s third-party claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly denied Knockdown’s motion as untimely, because Knockdown failed to show “good cause” for moving for summary judgment more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue (CPLR 3212 [a]; see e.g. Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered April 6, 2016, which denied second third-party defendant Knockdown Contracting Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing second third-party plaintiff Columbia Hicks Associates LLC’s third-party claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly denied Knockdown’s motion as untimely, because Knockdown failed to show “good cause” for moving for summary judgment more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue (CPLR 3212 [a]; see e.g. Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4375, 151 A.D.3d 425, 52 N.Y.S.3d 863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-columbia-hicks-associates-llc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack