From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morales v. One Time Square Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 15, 1998
254 A.D.2d 124 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

October 15, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.).


Defendants' motion for summary judgment was properly denied as untimely because it was filed more than 120 days from the effective date of CPLR 3212 (a) (as amended by L 1996, ch 492; see, Newman v. Keuhnelian, 248 A.D.2d 258, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 804; Phoenix Garden Rest. v. Chu, 245 A.D.2d 164), and good cause for the delay in filing the motion was not shown ( see, Shmulevich v. Gabbidon, 253 A.D.2d 756; Borelli v. Gegaj, 248 A.D.2d 299). We note that there would appear to be factual issues as to whether plaintiff justifiably relied upon defendants' admissions of premises ownership in forbearing from suing the receiver.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Morales v. One Time Square Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 15, 1998
254 A.D.2d 124 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Morales v. One Time Square Associates

Case Details

Full title:RENE MORALES, Respondent, v. ONE TIME SQUARE ASSOCIATES, L.P., et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 15, 1998

Citations

254 A.D.2d 124 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
678 N.Y.S.2d 264