Weiner v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weiner v. Miller

56 A.D.2d 819, 393 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11120

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 56 A.D.2d 819 (Weiner v. Miller) 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

Weiner v. Miller, 56 A.D.2d 819, 393 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11120 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New

York County, entered on July 22, 1976 and judgment entered thereon on August 4, 1976, awarding summary judgment to defendants-respondents, dismissing the complaint herein as time-barred on condition that defendants pay to plaintiff costs in the sum of $2,000, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of striking the provision for costs and, as so modified, the order and judgment are affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, for the reasons stated at Special Term. The fact that the defendants’ motions were made on the eve of trial did not warrant the imposition of costs. Defendants, having raised the defense of Statute of Limitations in their answers, could properly move for summary judgment at any time "after issue has been joined”. (CPLR 3212, subd [a].) Concur—Murphy, J. P., Lupiano, Capozzoli, Lane and Markewich, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New

York County, entered on July 22, 1976 and judgment entered thereon on August 4, 1976, awarding summary judgment to defendants-respondents, dismissing the complaint herein as time-barred on condition that defendants pay to plaintiff costs in the sum of $2,000, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of striking the provision for costs and, as so modified, the order and judgment are affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, for the reasons stated at Special Term. The fact that the defendants’ motions were made on the eve of trial did not warrant the imposition of costs. Defendants, having raised the defense of Statute of Limitations in their answers, could properly move for summary judgment at any time "after issue has been joined”. (CPLR 3212, subd [a].) Concur—Murphy, J. P., Lupiano, Capozzoli, Lane and Markewich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 819, 393 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiner-v-miller-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack