Tavkar v. Cab

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tavkar v. Cab

289 A.D.2d 221, 734 N.Y.S.2d 466, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11787

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

DecidedDecember 3, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 221 (Tavkar v. Cab) 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

Tavkar v. Cab, 289 A.D.2d 221, 734 N.Y.S.2d 466, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant IlonaBoris Cab appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated January 8, 2001, which denied as untimely its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

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

A motion for summary judgment must be made within 120 days of the filing of a note of issue “except with leave of court on good cause shown” (CPLR 3212 [a]; see, Gonzalez v 98 Mag [222]*222Leasing Corp., 95 NY2d 124, 128-129; Olzaski v Locust Val. Cent. School Dist., 256 AD2d 320, 321). The appellant’s summary judgment motion, filed more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue, was untimely. Moreover, it was made without leave of the court and without good cause shown for the delay (see, Torres v Westchester Dental Servs., 287 AD2d 710; Clifford v Harrow Stores, 274 AD2d 370, 371; Olzaski v Locust Val. Cent. School Dist., supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion as untimely. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, 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, the defendant IlonaBoris Cab appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated January 8, 2001, which denied as untimely its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

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

A motion for summary judgment must be made within 120 days of the filing of a note of issue “except with leave of court on good cause shown” (CPLR 3212 [a]; see, Gonzalez v 98 Mag [222]*222Leasing Corp., 95 NY2d 124, 128-129; Olzaski v Locust Val. Cent. School Dist., 256 AD2d 320, 321). The appellant’s summary judgment motion, filed more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue, was untimely. Moreover, it was made without leave of the court and without good cause shown for the delay (see, Torres v Westchester Dental Servs., 287 AD2d 710; Clifford v Harrow Stores, 274 AD2d 370, 371; Olzaski v Locust Val. Cent. School Dist., supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion as untimely. Ritter, J. P., Goldstein, Friedmann, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 221, 734 N.Y.S.2d 466, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tavkar-v-cab-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack