From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roberts v. Cleaners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 25, 1999
261 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 25, 1999

Appeal from the order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.).


Defendant Conti's cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied as untimely since it was made more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue ( see, CPLR 3212 [a]) and there was no showing of good cause warranting the motion's consideration despite the delay ( see, Rosario v. Kenyon Son, 258 A.D.2d 265). In any event, the motion would have been properly denied on the merits, since the record in this slip and fall case raises issues of fact as to whether snow was removed by Conti and as to whether such removal created or increased the hazard alleged to have resulted in plaintiff's injuries ( see, Jiuz v. City of New York, 244 A.D.2d 298; Glick v. City of New York, 139 A.D.2d 402).

Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

Roberts v. Cleaners

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 25, 1999
261 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Roberts v. Cleaners

Case Details

Full title:MICHELLE ROBERTS, Respondent, v. CONTI CLEANERS, Appellant, et al.…

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

Date published: May 25, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
690 N.Y.S.2d 422

Citing Cases

Siegel v. Siler

Hence, a timely summary judgment motion and cross motion permit consideration of an untimely cross motion…

Siegel v. Siler

Hence, a timely summary judgment motion and cross-motion permits consideration of an untimely cross-motion,…