Perini Corp. v. City of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Marlow, J.
After the order on appeal was rendered, the Court of Appeals spoke clearly and decisively on what constitutes “good cause” for obtaining an extension of time to comply with the statutory requirements for moving for summary judgment after a party files a note of issue (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648 [2004]). We take this opportunity to emphasize and to caution the bar that the language of Miceli and Brill is clear and strict. Therefore, the rule these holdings address may not be approached…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brill v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- Miceli v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
3Cited by21 opinions
- Filannino v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Coty v. County of ClintonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Espejo v. Hiro Real Estate Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Tower Insurance v. Razy AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Crawford v. Liz Claiborne, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.