Tatar v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
| Decision Date | 25 February 2002 |
| Parties | DOROTHY L. TATAR et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, Respondent, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (hereinafter the Port Authority) pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c) for summary judgment based upon the Port Authority's status as an out-of-possession landlord (see, Putnam v Stout, 38 NY2d 607; D'Orlando v Port Auth. of NY & NJ, 250 AD2d 805; Stark v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 224 AD2d 681). The motion was timely since a stipulation which extends the time in which to answer a complaint also extends the time in which to move pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c), unless a contrary intent is clearly stated (see, Rich v Lefkovits, 56 NY2d 276, 279-280; Santos v Chappell, 63 Misc 2d 730).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cumanet, LLC v. Murad
...NYCRR] § 202.12a [c][7]; see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Hosain, 178 A.D.3d at 787, 114 N.Y.S.3d 122 ; cf. Tatar v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 291 A.D.2d 554, 555, 737 N.Y.S.2d 874 ). The defendants concede that the plaintiff made its motion for a default judgment less than one year after ......
-
Redlyn Electric Corp. v. Dean Electric Co., Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 31258(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 6/1/2009)
...answer also extends the time in which a party may bring a motion, unless contrary intent is clearly stated. E.g., Tatar v. Port Authority, 291 A.D.2d 554 (2d Dept. 2002). Here, the parties affirmatively agreed to extend Dean and Olivia's time to answer and there is nothing in the signed sti......
- Staatsburg Water Company v. Dutchess County
- Zapata v. Guzman