Legal Opinion
Brill & Meisel v. Brown
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 14, 2014Published
1Opinion of the Court
The motion court properly considered defendants’ untimely cross motion for summary judgment, because they sought dismissal of the same claims on which plaintiff timely sought summary judgment (see Filannino v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 34 AD3d 280, 281 [1st Dept 2006], appeal dismissed 9 NY3d 862 [2007]; Osario v BRF Constr. Corp., 23 AD3d 202, 203 [1st Dept 2005]; cf. Kershaw v Hospital for Special Surgery, 114 AD3d 75 [1st Dept 2013] [motion incorrectly denominated a cross motion, untimely filed, will not be considered absent good cause shown]). In addition, the court properly…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Filannino v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- In the Matter of Weinstein v. City of New York Department of Housing Preservation and DevelopmentNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
- Coccia v. LiottiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Russo v. Feder, Kaszovitz, Isaacson, Weber, Skala & Bass, LLPAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Kershaw v. Hospital for Special SurgeryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.