Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Hong Kong Supermarket, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Hong Kong Supermarket, Inc.

126 A.D.3d 585, 3 N.Y.S.3d 590

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2015

Docket14488 102185/10

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.3d 585 (Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Hong Kong Supermarket, 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

Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Hong Kong Supermarket, Inc., 126 A.D.3d 585, 3 N.Y.S.3d 590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered July 3, 2013, which denied as untimely the motion of defendant Hong Kong Supermarket, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the matter remanded for a determination of the motion on the merits.

The motion court granted Hong Kong’s request for an extension of the summary judgment deadline in a closely related consolidated action, but determined that Hong Kong’s summary judgment motion in this action was untimely. Under the specific circumstances of this case, the court should have found that good cause existed to review Hong Kong’s motion for summary judgment on the merits (see CPLR 3212 [a]).

Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered July 3, 2013, which denied as untimely the motion of defendant Hong Kong Supermarket, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the matter remanded for a determination of the motion on the merits.

The motion court granted Hong Kong’s request for an extension of the summary judgment deadline in a closely related consolidated action, but determined that Hong Kong’s summary judgment motion in this action was untimely. Under the specific circumstances of this case, the court should have found that good cause existed to review Hong Kong’s motion for summary judgment on the merits (see CPLR 3212 [a]).

Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 585, 3 N.Y.S.3d 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tower-ins-co-of-ny-v-hong-kong-supermarket-inc-nyappdiv-2015.