Legal Opinion
Azcona v. Salem
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 13, 2008PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
In granting defendants’ belated summary judgment motion (see CPLR 3212 [a]), Supreme Court did not address the issue of whether defendants demonstrated good cause (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [ 2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]). In any event, as a matter of law, defendants failed to demonstrate good cause. Defendants claim that after the first note of issue was struck in 2004, they did not learn that another note of issue had been filed until early May 2006, shortly before the 120-day period for moving for summary judgment was about to expire,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Brill v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- Engel v. LightermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Miceli v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- Crawford v. Liz Claiborne, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
3Cited by4 opinions
- Fofana v. 41 West 34th Street, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Maschi v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Maschi v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Nolan v. J.C.S. Realty, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010