From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pierre v. Feldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 2007
41 A.D.3d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-06452.

June 5, 2007.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Pavel Feldman appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated April 12, 2006, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for leave to serve and file a late motion for summary judgment, and summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Mitchell N. Kay, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Patrick J. McGrath of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mastro, J.P., Ritter, Skelos, Carni and McCarthy, JJ.


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

Pursuant to rule 13 of the Uniform Civil Term Rules of the Supreme Court, Kings County, the appellant was required to make his motion for summary judgment no more than 60 days after the note of issue was filed, unless he obtained leave of the court on good cause shown. His motion was made more than 60 days after the plaintiffs filed a note of issue on May 27, 2005 and the excuse proffered by the appellant's attorney was insufficient to constitute good cause for the delay ( see CPLR 2211, 3212 [a]; Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652; Breiding v Giladi, 15 AD3d 435). Accordingly, the appellant's motion was properly denied as untimely.


Summaries of

Pierre v. Feldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 5, 2007
41 A.D.3d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Pierre v. Feldman

Case Details

Full title:ROGER PIERRE et al., Respondents, v. PAVEL FELDMAN, Appellant, et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 5, 2007

Citations

41 A.D.3d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 4809
836 N.Y.S.2d 702

Citing Cases

Simpson v. Hilfiger U.S.A

in addition to establishing the existence of a meritorious cause of action in his affidavit of merit, which…

Ratliff v. Almeida

The instant motion was made on January 29, 2020, more than 90 days after the note of issue was filed.…