Sefel v. Mizzaro's Restaurant, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sefel v. Mizzaro's Restaurant, Inc.

251 A.D.2d 130, 672 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6957

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

DecidedJune 16, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 130 (Sefel v. Mizzaro's Restaurant, Inc.) 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

Sefel v. Mizzaro's Restaurant, Inc., 251 A.D.2d 130, 672 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6957 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about September 17, 1997 and January 29, 1998, which denied defendant’s motions to vacate the note of issue and for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We decline to disturb the motion court’s exercise of discretion in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that it was made more than 31 days after the filing of the note of issue, in violation of the court’s preliminary conference order (CPLR 3212 [a]), and note that defendant did not seek leave of the court to make this untimely motion for good cause shown. We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find that they do not warrant any modification of the orders. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

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

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about September 17, 1997 and January 29, 1998, which denied defendant’s motions to vacate the note of issue and for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We decline to disturb the motion court’s exercise of discretion in denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that it was made more than 31 days after the filing of the note of issue, in violation of the court’s preliminary conference order (CPLR 3212 [a]), and note that defendant did not seek leave of the court to make this untimely motion for good cause shown. We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find that they do not warrant any modification of the orders. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 130, 672 N.Y.S.2d 737, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sefel-v-mizzaros-restaurant-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack