1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.3d
  4. 16 A.D.3d
  5. 16 A.D.3d 37 (2005)
 

PERINI CORP. v. NY CITY

16 A.D.3d 37 (2005)

789 N.Y.S.2d 29

PERINI CORPORATION, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION), Respondent.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

February 3, 2005.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Law Offices of Melvin J. Kalish, Mineola (Melvin J. Kalish and William A. Jaskola of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Elizabeth S. Natrella, Pamela Seider Dolgow and Robina M. Gumbs of counsel), for respondent.

BUCKLEY, P.J., ELLERIN and CATTERSON, JJ., concur.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MARLOW, J.

After the order on appeal was rendered, the Court of Appeals spoke clearly and decisively on what constitutes "good cause" for obtaining an extension of time to comply with the statutory requirements for moving for summary judgment after a party files a note of issue (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 N.Y.3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York,

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases