GOODMAN v. GUDI, N.Y. App. Div., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

David P. Kownacki, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant. Aaronson, Rappaport, Feinstein Deutsch, LLP, New York, N Y (Steven C. Mandell of counsel), for respondent Madhav Gudi. Callan, Regenstreich, Koster Brady, New York, N.Y. (Michael P. Kandler of counsel), for respondent Krishnmurthi Sundaram. Bartlett, McDonough, Bastone Monaghan, LLP, White Plains, N Y (Edward J. Guardaro, Jr., of counsel), for respondent Brooklyn Hospital Center.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

ARZIE GOODMAN, appellant, v. MADHAV GUDI, etc., et al., respondents, et al., defendants.

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

CPLR 3212 (a) provides that motions 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. The Supreme Court is afforded latitude with respect to determining whether good cause exists for permitting late motions for summary judgment, and it may entertain a belated but meritorious motion in the interest of judicial economy where the opposing party fails to demonstrate prejudice ( see, Quinlan v. Kaufman, 258 A.D.2d 453 [2d Dept., Feb. 1, 1999]). We find that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the respondents to file late motions for summary judgment ( see. Quinlan v. Kaufman, supra).

BRACKEN, J.P., THOMPSON, GOLDSTEIN, McGINITY, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.

GOODMAN v. GUDI

ARZIE GOODMAN, appellant, v. MADHAV GUDI, etc., et al., respondents, et al., defendants.

Comments