Tatar v. Port Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tatar v. Port Authority

291 A.D.2d 554, 737 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1941

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

DecidedFebruary 25, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 554 (Tatar v. Port Authority) 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

Tatar v. Port Authority, 291 A.D.2d 554, 737 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1941 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), entered May 2, 2001, which, upon an order of the same court dated December 22, 2000, granting the motion of the defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (hereinafter the Port Authority) pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c) for summary judgment based upon the Port Authority’s status as an out-of-possession landlord (see, Putnam v Stout, 38 NY2d 607; D’Orlando v Port Auth. of NY & NJ, 250 AD2d 805; Stark v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 224 AD2d 681). The motion was timely since a stipulation which extends the time in which to answer a complaint also extends the time in which to move pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c), unless a contrary intent is clearly stated (see, Rich v Lefkovits, 56 NY2d 276, 279-280; Santos v Chappell, 63 Misc 2d 730). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, 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 amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), entered May 2, 2001, which, upon an order of the same court dated December 22, 2000, granting the motion of the defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (hereinafter the Port Authority) pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c) for summary judgment based upon the Port Authority’s status as an out-of-possession landlord (see, Putnam v Stout, 38 NY2d 607; D’Orlando v Port Auth. of NY & NJ, 250 AD2d 805; Stark v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 224 AD2d 681). The motion was timely since a stipulation which extends the time in which to answer a complaint also extends the time in which to move pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c), unless a contrary intent is clearly stated (see, Rich v Lefkovits, 56 NY2d 276, 279-280; Santos v Chappell, 63 Misc 2d 730). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 554, 737 N.Y.S.2d 874, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tatar-v-port-authority-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack