From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bono v. Barzallo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 1999
260 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

April 26, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is now established that, in a case where the note of issue was filed before January 1, 1997, that is, before the effective date of chapter 492 of the Laws of 1996 which amended CPLR 3212 (a), a motion for summary judgment should, in general, be made within 120 days after January 1, 1997 ( see, e.g., Olzaski v. Locust Val. Cent. School Dist., 256 A.D.2d 320; Wade v. Byung Yang Kim, 250 A.D.2d 323; Krug v. Jones, 252 A.D.2d 572; Phoenix Garden Rest. v. Chu, 245 A.D.2d 164; Auger v. State of New York, 236 A.D.2d 177). In the present case, the note of issue was filed in 1995, yet the defendant's motion was not made until August 25, 1997. Nonetheless, we find that the motion was not untimely pursuant to CPLR 3212 (a), in light of the fact that the 1995 note of issue was, in essence, nullified when the plaintiff's action was removed from the trial calendar on April 29, 1997 ( see, Attilio v. Gladstone, 174 Misc.2d 759). Therefore, the Supreme Court did not err in entertaining the defendants' motion on the merits, and properly granted the motion.

Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bono v. Barzallo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 1999
260 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Bono v. Barzallo

Case Details

Full title:CRAIG A. BONO, Appellant, v. CARMEN M. BARZALLO et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Apr 26, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
688 N.Y.S.2d 655

Citing Cases

Williams v. Peralta

As noted, the plaintiffs filed a new note of issue on December 12, 2005. It is undisputed that the…

Vinueza v. Tarar

In the order dated July 18, 2011, the Supreme Court stated, in response to the appellant's contention that…