From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Krug v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 27, 1998
252 A.D.2d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

July 27, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A 1996 amendment to CPLR 3212 (a), effective January 1, 1997, requires the filing of a motion for summary judgment within 120 days of the filing, of the note of issue. (see, CPLR 3212 [a], as amended by L 1996, ch 492). The defendants' motion for summary judgment was properly denied as untimely, having been made more than 120 days after the effective date of the amendment to CPLR 3212 (a) (see, Phoenix Garden Rest. v. Chu, 245 A.D.2d 164; Auger v. State of New York, 236 A.D.2d 177, 179-180; see also, Almonte v. Shara Assocs., 248 A.D.2d 288; Borelli v. Gegaj, 248 A.D.2d 299; Rodriguez v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 245 A.D.2d 175).

The defendants' remaining contentions are not addressed in light of the determination on the issue of the timeliness of the motion for summary judgment.

Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Krug v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 27, 1998
252 A.D.2d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Krug v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:JAMES E. KRUG et al., Respondents, v. DAWN P. JONES et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jul 27, 1998

Citations

252 A.D.2d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
675 N.Y.S.2d 302

Citing Cases

Degaetano v. JP Morgan Chase Bank

Filing a motion for summary judgment beyond the time limit makes that motion untimely as a matter of law,…

Wade v. Byung Yang Kim

Accordingly, to avoid injustice, we hold that the subject amendment to CPLR 3211 (e) is retroactive but the…