Breiding v Giladi
2005 NYSlipOp 01155
February 14, 2005
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 20, 2005


Elisa E. Breiding et al., Appellants,
v
David Giladi et al., Respondents.

[*1]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated November 18, 2003, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The Supreme Court's order, which was issued before the ruling of the Court of Appeals in Brill v City of New York (2 NY3d 648 [2004]), erroneously granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The motion was made more than two months after the statutory deadline (i.e., 120 days from the date the note of issue was filed) (see CPLR 3212 [a]), and the defendants' perfunctory claims of unspecified clerical inadvertence and reassignment of counsel were insufficient to constitute good cause for the delay (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, supra; Sanango v Generoso, 13 AD3d 349 [2004]; Gibbs v McRide Cab Co., 10 AD3d 671 [2004]; Thompson v New York City Bd. of Educ., 10 AD3d 650 [2004]). Krausman, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.