From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mizell v. Eastman Bixby Redevelopment Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 2006
34 A.D.3d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

No. 2005-06727.

November 28, 2006.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered June 10, 2005, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Before: Florio, J.P., Krausman, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

Contrary to the defendants' contentions, Brill v City of New York ( 2 NY3d 648) applies to cases such as the present one, where a movant makes a motion for summary judgment after the expiration of a court-ordered deadline which is shorter than the 120-day deadline set forth in CPLR 3212 (a) ( see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725; Brooks v Ross, 24 AD3d 589). Since the defendants failed to demonstrate the existence of good cause for their failure to make their motion for summary judgment prior to the expiration of the court-ordered deadline, the Supreme Court should have denied the motion.


Summaries of

Mizell v. Eastman Bixby Redevelopment Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 2006
34 A.D.3d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Mizell v. Eastman Bixby Redevelopment Co.

Case Details

Full title:MICHELLE MIZELL, Appellant, v. EASTMAN BIXBY REDEVELOPMENT Co., LLC, et…

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

Date published: Nov 28, 2006

Citations

34 A.D.3d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 8952
825 N.Y.S.2d 513

Citing Cases

Williams v. Miller

Where a movant makes a motion for summary judgment after the expiration of a court-ordered deadline which is…

TRAY WRAP, INC. v. PACIFIC TOMATO GROWERS LTD.

The "good cause" requirement not only applies to any motions made beyond the 120 days prescribed by the…