From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bevilacqua v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 1, 2005
21 A.D.3d 340 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

August 1, 2005.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Thomas C. Reitz, Jr., and Albert W. Marini, Jr., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated October 13, 2004, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Before: H. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent.

The appellants' summary judgment motion was made more than 60 days after the plaintiff filed a note of issue on February 4, 2004, in violation of rule 13 of the Uniform Civil Trial Rules of the Supreme Court, Kings County. The appellants failed to establish good cause for the delay ( see CPLR 3212 [a]; Miceli v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725; Brill v. City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652; First Union Auto Fin., Inc. v. Donat, 16 AD3d 372; Breiding v. Giladi, 15 AD3d 435).

In light of our determination, we need not consider the parties' remaining contentions.


Summaries of

Bevilacqua v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 1, 2005
21 A.D.3d 340 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Bevilacqua v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:CARMELA BEVILACQUA, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, THOMAS C…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 1, 2005

Citations

21 A.D.3d 340 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
798 N.Y.S.2d 909

Citing Cases

Utica Mut. Ins. v. Brooklyn Navy Yard Dev. Corp.

However, defendants BNYDC and NYC made the instant motion on November 14, 2008, 134 days after the certified…

Tucci v. Colella

The defendant here failed to make the required showing. [ Emphasis added] ( See Riccardi v CVS Pharmacy,…