Wagner v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wagner v. City of New York

271 A.D.2d 439, 706 N.Y.S.2d 128, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3808

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

DecidedApril 3, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 439 (Wagner 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

Wagner v. City of New York, 271 A.D.2d 439, 706 N.Y.S.2d 128, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated April 9, 1999, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendant City of New York which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the City of New York.

CPLR 3212 (a), as amended effective January 1, 1997, requires a motion for summary judgment to be made within 120 days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown (see, CPLR 3212 [a], as amended by L 1996, ch 492). Here, the motion was made well after the 120-day period, without any showing of good cause for the delay. Thus, the motion should have been denied (see, Morhart v City of New York, 267 AD2d 438; Anzalone v Varis, 254 AD2d 381). Joy, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mastro, J.), dated April 9, 1999, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendant City of New York which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the City of New York.

CPLR 3212 (a), as amended effective January 1, 1997, requires a motion for summary judgment to be made within 120 days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown (see, CPLR 3212 [a], as amended by L 1996, ch 492). Here, the motion was made well after the 120-day period, without any showing of good cause for the delay. Thus, the motion should have been denied (see, Morhart v City of New York, 267 AD2d 438; Anzalone v Varis, 254 AD2d 381). Joy, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 439, 706 N.Y.S.2d 128, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wagner-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack