From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stransky v. Tannenbaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1999
262 A.D.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued April 12, 1999

June 1, 1999

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, etc., (1) the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), entered April 6, 1998, as denied that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) the plaintiffs cross-appeal from so much of the same order, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to serve a supplemental verified bill of particulars.

L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita Contini, LLP, Garden City, N Y (Peter D. Rigelhaupt of counsel), for appellants-respondents.

Weissman Weissman, Mineola, N.Y. (Norman Bard, Benedene Cannata, and Stanley Weissman of counsel), for respondents-appellants.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendants' cross motion was properly denied as untimely under the recent amendment to CPLR 3212(a) which requires that a motion for summary judgment "shall be made no later than [120] days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown" (L 1996, ch. 492, eff. Jan. 1, 1997). Where, as here, the note of issue predates the January 1, 1997, effective date of the amendment, the moving party is required to make the motion no later than 120 days after January 1, 1997 ( see, Rich v. Ciano, 254 A.D.2d 268 [2d Dept., Oct. 5, 1998]; DiFusco v. Wal-Mart Discount Cities, 255A.D.2d 937 [4th Dept., Nov. 13, 1998]; Phoenix Garden Restaurants v. Chu, 245 A.D.2d 164, 165). Here, the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment was dated November 3, 1997, after the 120-day period had expired and the defendants failed to show good cause for their belated motion.

The plaintiffs' application to supplement their bill of particulars was properly denied ( see, Crimmins Contr. Co. v. City of New York, 74 N.Y.2d 166, 170; Dos v. Scelsa Villacara, 200 A.D.2d 705, 707; Stroock Stroock Lavan v. Beltramini, 157 A.D.2d 590; JIHL Assocs. v. Frank, 137 A.D.2d 655, 657; Scarangello v. State of New York, 111 A.D.2d 798).


Summaries of

Stransky v. Tannenbaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1999
262 A.D.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Stransky v. Tannenbaum

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA STRANSKY, et al., respondents-appellants, v. STEVEN B…

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
691 N.Y.S.2d 540

Citing Cases

Perry v. Pagano

The plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability was properly denied since it…

Kaminski v. Modern Ital. Bkry. of W. Babylon

In July 2000 the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court properly…