Fine v. One Bryant Park
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Frascino v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Adam P10tch, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- O'Leary v. S&A Electrical Contracting Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Winfield v. Monticello Senior Housing Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Chmielowiec v. Blackwood (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Doe v. Madison Third Building Companies, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Freire-Crespo v. 345 Park Avenue L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Quinones v. Joan & Sanford I. Weill Medical College & Graduate School of Medical Sciences of Cornell University (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Quinones v. Joan & Sanford I. Weill Medical College & Graduate School of Medical Sciences of Cornell University (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered May 25, 2010, which, in this personal injury action,
It is undisputed that defendants failed to file the motion within the time period set by the assigned IAS judge. The motion court concluded that defendants failed to establish good cause for the delay in making the motion (see CPLR 3212 [a]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]). A motion court’s exercise of its broad discretion in determining whether the moving party has established good cause for delay will not be overturned unless it was improvident (see Daley v M/S Capital NY LLC, 44 AD3d 313, 315 [2007]; Pena v Women’s Outreach Network, Inc., 35 AD3d 104, 108 [2006]). Inasmuch as the record establishes that defendants could have easily determined which judge was assigned to the matter (see Giudice v Green 292 Madison, LLC, 50 AD3d 506 [2008]), the court’s exercise of its discretion was not improvident.
We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P, Saxe, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.