Late papers in accordance with CPLR 2214 are okay
April 28, 2013 No Comments
Halas v Dick’s Sporting Goods, 2013 NY Slip Op 02915 (4th Dept. 2013) “Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion in accepting late responding papers from
Halas v Dick’s Sporting Goods, 2013 NY Slip Op 02915 (4th Dept. 2013) “Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion in accepting late responding papers from
Carrasquillo v New York City Dept. of Educ., (DOE), 2013 NY Slip Op 01626 (1st Dept. 2013) “Plaintiffs’ original notice of claim did not allege that
Payne v Buffalo Gen. Hosp., 2012 NY Slip Op 04901 (4th Dept. 2012) [Oral application granted and untimely papers deemed accepted] “With respect to appeal No.
Valley Natl. Bank v INI Holding, LLC, 2012 NY Slip Op 03830 (2d Dept. 2012) “Although multiple summary judgment motions in the same action should be
Maragos v Sakurai, 2012 NY Slip Op 01592 (2d Dept. 2012) “CPLR 3212(b) requires that a motion for summary judgment must be supported by, among other
Woodward Med. Rehabilitation, P.C. v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 52442(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2011) In this case, which seems to
The 3212(g) effect. Limiting issues for trial. According to Professor Siegel, 3212(g) is the remnants of “the aborted motion for summary judgment.” This provision is a
VIT Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 51560(U)(Civ. Ct. Kings Co. 2010) The Civil Court found, not surprisingly, that CPLR
Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50987(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010) This case really should be in the misc.3d reporter
Leonardi v Cruz, 2010 NY Slip Op 04257 (1sr Dept. 2010) “Furthermore, although “[a] cross motion for summary judgment made after the expiration of the statutory
Rivera v City of New York, 2010 NY Slip Op 03773 (1st Dept. 2010) “Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, which was made in response to
Palisades Collection Co., LLC v Velazquez, 2010 NY Slip Op 50675(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2010) In this action to recover a credit card debt, plaintiff’s evidence
Riu Chiropractic, P.C. v AutoOne Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 50653(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2010) “In opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and in
I thought this issue was resolved a long time ago: 3212(a) applies to the lower courts as well as Supreme Court. Here are some examples holding
Fontanetta v John Doe 1, 2010 NY Slip Op 02743 (2d Dept. 2010) “[t]he case law is somewhat more abundant as to what is not “documentary
Bandler v Liberty Chevrolet, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 50475(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2010) Many people, I guess because of the volume of interlocutory appeals that
It looks as if an objector to a stamped signature or a computer generated signature needs to present some evidence that the signature is not holographic
Yes, you read that title correctly. Three bizarre decisions as of late, one which deals tangentially with no fault (Garcia v Leon, 2010 NY Slip Op
B.Y., M.D., P.C. v Government Empl. Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 20026 (App. Term 2d Dept. 2010) This case is weird. Why would a provider
In a tribute to the CPLR blog, and DG’s CPLR R. 3212(f) quest, vendetta or obsession (you pick the appropriate one), here is another case where
