From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bigaj v. Gehl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 6, 1989
154 A.D.2d 893 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

October 6, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Forma, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Denman, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We agree with Supreme Court that defendants did not abandon their counterclaim; thus, the protective order was properly denied. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim was properly denied because it was untimely made. The motion was made on only two days' notice and defendant did not have an adequate opportunity to submit answering affidavits (see, Burstin v Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 98 A.D.2d 928; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C2214:12).


Summaries of

Bigaj v. Gehl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 6, 1989
154 A.D.2d 893 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Bigaj v. Gehl

Case Details

Full title:JOAN BIGAJ, Appellant, v. THOMAS J. GEHL et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Oct 6, 1989

Citations

154 A.D.2d 893 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
545 N.Y.S.2d 860

Citing Cases

State Bank v. Kaanam, LLC

of fact whether their counsel received adequate notice of the return date for plaintiff's motion for summary…