Miranda v. Devlin
| Decision Date | 12 April 1999 |
| Citation | 260 A.D.2d 451,688 N.Y.S.2d 578 |
| Parties | AIXA MIRANDA, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of CHRISTINE DUSSAN, Deceased, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>KATHLEEN A. DEVLIN et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in considering the cross motion of the defendants Kathleen A. Devlin and Dennis Devlin for summary judgment. This cross motion was made approximately five days after the expiration of the applicable 120-day period as provided by CPLR 3212 (a). Nevertheless, in light of the minimal delay, the absence of prejudice, and the fact that the defendant Denise A. Harnett had already served a nearly identical, but timely and as of yet undecided cross motion for summary judgment, good cause warranted the consideration of the Devlin defendants' cross motion (see, Acosta v 888 7th Ave. Assocs., 248 AD2d 284; cf., Olzaski v Locust Val. Cent. School Dist., 256 AD2d 320).
On the merits, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence before the court demonstrated, as a matter of law, that the sole cause of the accident that claimed the life of the plaintiff's decedent was the decedent's failure to heed the stop sign at the intersection where the accident occurred (see, Bolta v Lohan, 242 AD2d 356; Delasoudas v Koudellou, 236 AD2d 581; Salenius v Lisbon, 217 AD2d 692; Cassidy v Valenti, 211 AD2d 876; Hill v Luna, 195 AD2d 1000). The plaintiff's conclusory and speculative assertions to the contrary are unsupported by any evidence and are thus insufficient to overcome the defendants' prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Bolta v Lohan, supra; Wilke v Price, 221 AD2d 846; Cassidy v Valenti, supra; Hill v Luna, supra).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lambert v. Macy's E., Inc.
...delay was minimal and there was no prejudice to plaintiff ( see Lambadarios v. Kobren, 191 Misc.2d 86, 87 [2002],citing Miranda v. Devlin, 260 A.D.2d 451 [1999] ). Given the good cause established in defendants' papers, defendants' “cross motion” seeking leave to serve a late summary judgme......
-
Johnson v. Queens Crossing Condo.
...Boehme v. A.P.P.L.E., A Program Planned for Life Enrichment, 298 A.D.2d 540, 749 N.Y.S.2d 49 [2nd Dept.2002]; Miranda v. Devlin, 260 A.D.2d 451, 688 N.Y.S.2d 578 [2nd Dept.1999] ). In such circumstances, the issues raised by the untimely motion or cross motion are already properly before th......
-
Falkenberg v. Racanelli Constr. Co.
...v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 17 AD3d 496, 497, 793 N.Y.S.2d 176; Boehme v. A.P.P.L.E., 298 A.D.2d 540, 749 N.Y.S.2d 49; Miranda v Devlin, 260 A.D.2d 451, 688 N.Y.S.2d 578). "Notably, the court, in the course of deciding the timely motion, is, in any event, empowered to search the record and a......
-
Boykins v. Washousky
... ... supra; Barbaruolo v Difede, supra; O'Connor v Lopane, ... supra; Miranda v Devlin, 260 A.D.2d 451, 452, 688 ... N.Y.S.2d 578, 579 [2d Dept 1999]) ... Contrary to plaintiffs assertion, there is no evidence ... ...