Tepper v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tepper v. City of New York

13 A.D.3d 124, 786 N.Y.S.2d 449, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15012

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 124 (Tepper v. City of New York) 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

Tepper v. City of New York, 13 A.D.3d 124, 786 N.Y.S.2d 449, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered October 27, 2003, which denied as untimely defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint.

Under the circumstances of this case, the court should have exercised its discretion to excuse the brief delay in moving for summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Quinlan v Kaufman, 258 AD2d 453 [1999]).

Defendant-appellant demonstrated that on the merits it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it did not remove, repair or restore the concrete blocks in the crosswalk on which plaintiff tripped and fell. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs and defendant-respondent City demonstrated no more than that defendant-appellant was present at the site during the project, thus failing to raise an issue of fact [125]*125as to whether defendant-appellant worked on the concrete blocks on which plaintiff fell. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered October 27, 2003, which denied as untimely defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant dismissing the complaint.

Under the circumstances of this case, the court should have exercised its discretion to excuse the brief delay in moving for summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Quinlan v Kaufman, 258 AD2d 453 [1999]).

Defendant-appellant demonstrated that on the merits it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it did not remove, repair or restore the concrete blocks in the crosswalk on which plaintiff tripped and fell. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs and defendant-respondent City demonstrated no more than that defendant-appellant was present at the site during the project, thus failing to raise an issue of fact [125]*125as to whether defendant-appellant worked on the concrete blocks on which plaintiff fell. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 124, 786 N.Y.S.2d 449, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tepper-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack