From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tatar v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 25, 2002
291 A.D.2d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-04808

Submitted January 23, 2002.

February 25, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), entered May 2, 2001, which, upon an order of the same court dated December 22, 2000, granting the motion of the defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey pursuant to CPLR 3211(c) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

DeVagno, Borchert, Levine LaSpina, P.C., Whitestone, N.Y. (Gregory M. LaSpina and Stephen J. Smith of counsel), for appellants.

Gallagher Gosseen Faller Crowley, Garden City, N.Y. (James A. Gallagher, Jr., and Robert A. Faller of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (hereinafter the Port Authority) pursuant to CPLR 3211(c) for summary judgment based upon the Port Authority's status as an out-of-possession landlord (see, Putnam v. Stout, 38 N.Y.2d 607; D'Orlando v. Port Authority of N.Y. NJ, 250 A.D.2d 805; Stark v. Port Auth. of N.Y. N.J., 224 A.D.2d 681). The motion was timely since a stipulation which extends the time in which to answer a complaint also extends the time in which to move pursuant to CPLR 3211(c), unless a contrary intent is clearly stated (see, Rich v. Lefkovits, 56 N.Y.2d 276, 279-280; Santos v. Chappell, 63 Misc.2d 730).

RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, O'BRIEN, H. MILLER and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Tatar v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 25, 2002
291 A.D.2d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Tatar v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J

Case Details

Full title:DOROTHY L. TATAR, ET AL., appellants, v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND…

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

Date published: Feb 25, 2002

Citations

291 A.D.2d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
737 N.Y.S.2d 874

Citing Cases

Reels v. Dynamics In Play, LLC

This supports Dynamics and Lenoff's contention that Judge Cohen did not specifically limit their reply to…

Redlyn Elec. Corp. v. Dean Elec. Co., Inc.

A stipulation that extends the time in which a defendant may answer also extends the time in which a party…