 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clermont-Lundy v. Zimbalist10/5/2005
ture, 18 AD3d 614 ).
Here, it is undisputed that Maimonides served and filed its motion for summary judgment 7 days after the court-ordered extension of time to file summary judgment motions had expired. Although Maimonides claims that it obtained leave of the court to make such late filing, no order extending the time to file was issued by the court; rather, the court informed Maimonides that it should address the issue of the late filing in its motion papers. Moreover, Maimonides has not demonstrated that it had good cause for its delay. The only excuse proffered is that because it did not receive Dr. Zimbalist's motion until March 16, 2005, it was unable to file its own motion until March 18, 2005. However, to the extent that Maimonides is attempting to "piggyback" on Dr. Zimbalist's timely motion for summary judgment, the court notes that Maimonides motion is not denominated as a cross motion and cannot be considered as such given that it seeks relief against plaintiff, who is a non-moving party (see Gaines v Shell-Mar Foods, Inc., 2005 Slip Op. 06771 ). Accordingly, as Maimonides has failed to demonstrate good cause for its untimely filing, the court is constrained to deny its motion for summary judgment without consideration of the merits of such motion (see Dettmann v Page, 18 AD3d 422 ; Thompson v New York City Board of Education, 10 AD3d 650, 651 ).
As a result, Dr. Zimbalist's motion for summary judgment is denied. Maimonides' motion for summary judgment is also denied.
The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 New York Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|