From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aurora v. Ford Motor Credit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 1999
266 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted October 20, 1999

November 30, 1999

In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, Christopher Mitchell, a plaintiff in Action No. 2, appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated December 9, 1998, as denied that branch of his motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim asserted against him in that action.

Richard J. Inzerillo, P.C., Smithtown, N.Y. (Daniel P. Gregory of counsel), for appellant.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., DAVID S. RITTER, DANIEL W. JOY, LEO F. McGINITY, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the appellant's motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim asserted against him in Action No. 2 is granted.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellant's motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim asserted against him in Action No. 2 on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Although the appellant's motion was not made within 120 days of the filing of the note of issue, he demonstrated good cause for his delay in making the motion ( see, 3212 N.Y.CPLR[a]). Additionally, it is clear that the doctrine of collateral estoppel ( see generally, Mahl v. Citibank, 234 A.D.2d 348) bars the counterclaim against the appellant in Action No. 2 ( see, Aurora v. Ford Motor Credit Corp., 260 A.D.2d 417 [2d Dept., Apr. 12, 1999]), and therefore the purposes of CPLR 3212(a) are not served by denial of the requested relief ( see, Rossi v. Arnot Ogden Med. Ctr., 252 A.D.2d 778).

MANGANO, P.J., RITTER, JOY, McGINITY, and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Aurora v. Ford Motor Credit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 1999
266 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Aurora v. Ford Motor Credit Corp.

Case Details

Full title:CARLO AURORA, plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION, et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 30, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
698 N.Y.S.2d 534

Citing Cases

Hanley v. East Moriches Union Free School

Thus, the plaintiffs' submissions were insufficient to defeat the School District's motion for summary…

Coello v. Christakos

Upon the record presented, we find that defendants established the requisite "good cause" for their delay in…