From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nobile v. Town of Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 25, 2005
17 A.D.3d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

2004-02964.

April 25, 2005.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Davis, J.), dated February 27, 2004, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Siben Siben, LLP, Bay Shore, N.Y. (Alan G. Faber of counsel), for appellants.

Joseph J. Ra, Town Attorney, Hempstead, N.Y. (Mary Elizabeth Mahon of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Florio, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Skelos, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in considering the defendant's untimely motion for summary judgment, since the defendant failed to show good cause for the delay ( see CPLR 3212 [a]; Brill v. City of New York, 2 NY3d 648; First Union Auto Fin., Inc. v. Donat, 16 AD3d 372). In light of our determination, we do not reach the merits of the parties' substantive claims ( see Brill v. City of New York, supra).


Summaries of

Nobile v. Town of Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 25, 2005
17 A.D.3d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Nobile v. Town of Hempstead

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM NOBILE et al., Appellants, v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, Respondent

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

Date published: Apr 25, 2005

Citations

17 A.D.3d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
792 N.Y.S.2d 910

Citing Cases

Brewi-Bijoux v. City of New York

"[A] motion in limine is an inappropriate substitute for a motion for summary judgment" ( Rondout Elec. v…