Tapia v. Prudential Richard Albert Realtors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tapia v. Prudential Richard Albert Realtors

79 A.D.3d 735, 911 N.Y.S.2d 919

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

DecidedDecember 7, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 79 A.D.3d 735 (Tapia v. Prudential Richard Albert Realtors) 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

Tapia v. Prudential Richard Albert Realtors, 79 A.D.3d 735, 911 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligent misrepresentation, the defendants Prudential Rand Realty and Maria Graca appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered December 9, 2008, as denied, as untimely, that branch of their motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, as untimely, that branch of the appellants’ motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The appellants failed to demonstrate good cause for their delay in making the motion (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]; Chechile v Magee, 66 AD3d 625 [2009]). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the issues raised on their motion were not nearly identical to the issues raised on the codefendants’ timely motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see Lennard v Khan, 69 AD3d 812, 814 [2010]; Podlaski v Long Is. Paneling Ctr. of Centereach, Inc., 58 AD3d 825, 827 [2009]; cf. Bickelman v Her-rill Bowling Corp., 49 AD3d 578, 580 [2008]). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Santucci and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligent misrepresentation, the defendants Prudential Rand Realty and Maria Graca appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered December 9, 2008, as denied, as untimely, that branch of their motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, as untimely, that branch of the appellants’ motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The appellants failed to demonstrate good cause for their delay in making the motion (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]; Chechile v Magee, 66 AD3d 625 [2009]). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the issues raised on their motion were not nearly identical to the issues raised on the codefendants’ timely motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see Lennard v Khan, 69 AD3d 812, 814 [2010]; Podlaski v Long Is. Paneling Ctr. of Centereach, Inc., 58 AD3d 825, 827 [2009]; cf. Bickelman v Her-rill Bowling Corp., 49 AD3d 578, 580 [2008]). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Santucci and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 735, 911 N.Y.S.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tapia-v-prudential-richard-albert-realtors-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack